Taylor, I do like all of your suggestions. Like I said in the initial mail I am mostly concerned about capturing the informal rules we have now and formalizing them. The bylaws I see as a living document that should be updated regularly to reflect how we want to run the project. As such I would prefer to adopt the current bylaws and have a separate discussion/vote on your proposed changes.
That being said, I do realize that small changes associated with a release are needed and no project I have worked on has forced release managers to follow the strict rules in those cases, or when a checkin went badly and a rollback is needed. So If you want me to make that formal, as I don¹t see that as being controversial, I am happy to do that and restart the vote if you feel it is needed. - Bobby On 6/20/14, 8:41 AM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote: >Bobby, > >Thanks for putting this together and my apologies for not providing >feedback sooner. > >The proposed bylaws make a distinction between committers/(P)PMC >members. Currently, all committers are also (P)PMC members. I think this >works for the number of members we have now. If that list gets really big >later, we may want to change the bylaws to make a distinction. > >For code changes do we want to have some provision for getting changes in >under 2 days if necessary (e.g. an important security fix, etc.) and/or >the ability to do lazy consensus for code changes? > >Another thought I have is concerning changes made during release >preparation. In the past I¹ve taken some liberty here when small changes >that don¹t affect the main code or functionality (for example to the >Maven build) are necessary. Otherwise, going through a 2-day vote for >minor pom changes could adversely affect our ability to release. For >example, if I make a mistake and need to need to do a `mvn >release:rollback`, I would like to be able to just do it. Obviously major >changed to the build (like when we switched from leinengen to maven) >would follow the regular code change rules. > >Other than those concerns, I think the bylaws look pretty good. > >- Taylor > >On Jun 20, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I got almost no feedback on the bylaws. I am hoping everyone thought >>they >> were a good idea and not that the document was so long that few >>bothered to >> read it. Either way I am calling a vote on the bylaws. >> >> In accordance with the proposed bylaws the vote will run for 7 days >>ending >> Friday June 27th, and will require at least 3 +1s from active (P)PMC >> members with at least twice as many +1s as -1s. Others in the community >> are encouraged to vote as well to let your opinion be known, even if >>your >> vote is not binding. >> >> If the vote passes I'll update the storm web page to include the >>bylaws. I >> am +1 (binding) >> >> You can find the markdown formatted bylaws at >> >> >>https://github.com/revans2/incubator-storm/blob/84d297a23c05fef5164029bd4 >>b697071aa349f9c/BYLAWS.md >> >> I only updated the formatting from the original proposal as you can see >>here >> >> >>https://github.com/revans2/incubator-storm/commit/84d297a23c05fef5164029b >>d4b697071aa349f9c#diff-77abd199a39cb67711132cd27fe41f6b >> >> - Bobby >
