Bobby: I don¹t understand the following 2 statements: (1) The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. (2) The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting
Does that mean ASF board is making an appointment per PMC votes? Your document also introduce a concept of ³emeritus². In Hadoop, I only see one emeritus committer. What¹s the typical practice? Andy On 6/16/14, 8:35 AM, "Bobby Evans" <[email protected]> wrote: >There has been discussion about storm graduating to a top level apache >project in the relatively near future. This is great, but I think it >would >be good to officially adopt a set of bylaws about how the project is >governed. I would prefer to not change anything initially with how the >project actually is governed, but mostly just formalize them in an >official >document. If others feel things need to be changed, I would prefer to >have >those be separate discussions/votes assuming that what I have written up >is >not fatally flawed. As such I have written up the following based off of >the bylaws of several other Apache projects. Which for the most part were >very similar, please let me know to fix any references to Cloud Stack, >Kafka, Hadoop, and Hive in here, I copied and pasted a lot. > >A few important to note in the section on electing the PMC chair, most >bylaws use lazy consensus but I followed the Hadoop model because lazy >consensus really only works for yes/no questions. I also kept the annual >rotation of the chair, but if others disagree I am fine with dropping it >and putting it up for a separate discussion. Also please pay close >attention to the different voting methods for different actions. >Different >groups each had different requirements. I put in some that I thought >would >be good, but I am very open to changing them. The only one that had been >discussed before was for a code change, so that one I would like to stay >the same for now. > ># Storm By-laws (Draft) > >## Roles and Responsibilities > >Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and >responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may perform >within the project. The roles are defined in the following sections > >### Users: > The most important participants in the project are people who use our >software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide >their >development efforts from the user's perspective. > > Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to >developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well, >users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on >mailing >lists and user support forums. > >### Contributors: > All of the volunteers who are contributing time, code, documentation, >or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that makes sustained, >welcome contributions to the project may be invited to become a Committer, >though the exact timing of such invitations depends on many factors. > >### Committers: > The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical >management. Committers have access to all project source repositories. >Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding >storm. > > Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy >consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus by >their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the project >for >over six months. An emeritus committer may request reinstatement of commit >access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to lazy consensus >approval of active PMC members. > > All Apache committers are required to have a signed Contributor >License >Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a >Committer FAQ which provides more details on the requirements for >Committers > > A committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be >invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not >limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on the >mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc. > >### Project Management Committee(PMC): > The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and >oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC >include > > Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm >project. In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC. > Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase >repository, mailing lists, websites. > Speaking on behalf of the project. > Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project. > Nominating new PMC members and committers. > Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project. > > Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a >consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered >"emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to >the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request >reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus >approval of the active PMC members. > > The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an >office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache >Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of >the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the >board quarterly on developments within the Storm project. > > The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or >if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a new >chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See >http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision >must >be ratified by the Apache board. > >## Voting > Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary >project development mailing list ([email protected]). Where >necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing >list. >Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE]. Votes >may >contain multiple items for approval and these should be clearly separated. >Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail. Voting may take four >flavors > Vote > Meaning > +1 > 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' > +0 > Neutral about the proposed action (or mildly negative but not enough >so >to want to block it). > -1 > This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this >vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the >veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be >appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action. > All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their >agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical >decisions, only the votes of active committers are binding. Non-binding >votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the >perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions, >only the votes of active PMC members are binding. > Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm >codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the >commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a >rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they >are >still patches before the code is committed. > Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) committers and PMC members have >binding >votes. > >## Approvals > These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions >require different types of approvals > Consensus Approval - Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes >and >no binding vetoes. > Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives >assent'). > Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and >more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. > Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes >and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. >### Vetoes > A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must >be accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The >validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a >binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - >merely that the veto is valid. > If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting >the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action >that has been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner. > >## Actions > This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within >the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and those >who have binding votes over the action. > > | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length | >Mailing List | > > >|---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|----- >---------| > | Code Change | A change made to a codebase of the project and >committed by a committer. This includes source code, documentation, >website >content, etc. | Two +1s from committers (at least one from someone who has >not authored the patch). | Active committers | 2 days from initial patch >|JIRA or Github pull ( with notification sent to >[email protected]) | > | Release Plan | Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The >plan also nominates a Release Manager. | Lazy majority | Active committers >| 3 days | [email protected] | > | Product Release | When a release of one of the project's products is >ready, a vote is required to accept the release as an official release of >the project. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC members | 3 days | >[email protected] | > | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, >released product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a >vote fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This >also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the >project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days | >[email protected] | > | New Committer | When a new committer is proposed for the project. | >Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days | >[email protected] | > | New PMC Member | When a committer is proposed for the PMC. | >Consensus Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days | >[email protected] | > | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member >requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus Approval | >Active PMC members | 7 days | [email protected] | > | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus committer >requests to be re-instated as an active committer. | Consensus Approval | >Active PMC members | 7 days | [email protected] | > | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. >Note: Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC >chair. >| Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the committer in >question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days | >[email protected] | > | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note: >Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair. | >Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in >question). >| 7 Days | [email protected] | > | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority | >Active PMC members | 7 Days | [email protected] |
