Aarrgh, accidental Send. Continuing, with overlap:
Voting
- Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about saying
a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already given some
+1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a finger to
take the action. [DISCUSS]
- Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
- 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' -- I
get the meaning, but find the phrasing of 'for those with binding votes'
awkward. Besides, non-binding votes are useful to the whole community.
Sometimes they stimulate lively discussions.
Vetoes
- 'If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has been vetoed must be
reversed in a timely manner.' -- Should that say 'any action that has
already been taken'?
Actions
- Why no action for release plans?
- Code Change: 'The code can be committed after the first +1.' --
Without any wait time?
- Product Release: Why lazy majority instead of lazy consensus?
[DISCUSS]
New PMC Member
- 'To promote a committer to a PMC member, ...' -- This implies a
requirement of becoming a committer before joining the PMC. None of the
current PMC members did that. ;) But seriously, do we want that
implication?
Committer Removal & PMC Member Removal
- Why allow removals with lazy majority instead of (non-lazy)
consensus? I have serious misgivings about that. Of course I don't expect
it will ever be a problem, but if there were a minority faction then its
members could be booted out one by one. That doesn't sound like the Apache
Way. [DISCUSS]
Voting Timeframes
- 72 hours: Should we add some flexibility? Should releases have
longer timeframes? What about long weekends or convention weeks? I
suggest making the timeframe for releases longer and making 72 hours the
minimum, with an option of longer timeframes when appropriate.
- 'Votes relating to code changes are not subject to a strict timetable
but should be made as timely as possible.' -- What does that mean? The
Code Change section says patches can be committed after the first +1, which
implies immediately after. Doesn't that cut off debate? If anyone wants
to give a -1 vote to a patch, they'd better be quick about it. [DISCUSS]
Whew! Sorry about the long list. (Aren't you glad I omitted the trivial
items?)
-- Lefty
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Lefty Leverenz <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I have some questions and comments, plus a long list of edits and trivia.
> I'll put the latter in a separate message tomorrow.
>
> Introduction
>
> - '*Be collaborative.* Working together on the open lists to make
> decisions helps the project grow.' -- Does 'open lists' mean the mailing
> lists? How about 'open mailing lists, JIRA, and review board'? (or 'bug
> database' instead of JIRA)
>
> Committers
>
> - Please explain active vs. emeritus, for example by adding a sentence
> such as 'Emeritus committers are inactive and lose their ability to
> commit code or cast binding votes.'
> - Are emeritus committers removed from the Apache committers mailing
> list?
>
> Release Manager
>
> - Why must release managers be committers? (In Hive that's not
> required.)
> - 'The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the dev mailing list' --
> Note that the Actions section doesn't include release plans, so this
> sentence implies that the RM makes all the decisions.
>
> Project Management Committee
>
> - Again, explain active vs. emeritus.
> - Are emeritus PMC members taken off the private mailing list?
>
> Voting
>
> - Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about
> saying a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already
> given some +1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a
> finger to take the action. [DISCUSS]
> - Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
> - 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Lefty
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Lefty Leverenz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>>
>>
>> -- Lefty
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>> > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
>>> than
>>> > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
>>> create
>>> > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take
>>> a
>>> > look to see if they look reasonable.
>>> >
>>> > Comments desired.
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>>> >
>>> > .. Owen
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
