Doug, Mark, et al, A few comments below.
> > There is no definition what infrastructure. > > I recommended that we not enshrine a particular infrastructure > in the bylaws. However perhaps this could be minimally > specified by replacing "sufficient infrastructure" with > "code repositories"? (See also last item below). My opinion is that "code repositories" would be worse than "infrastructure". You need a lot more than code repositories to run a project and community. If people are really worried about the lack of definition around "infrastructure", perhaps something like "...infrastructure, including such services as code repositories, issue databases, mail list servers and the like..." Personally I think that trying to define infrastructure is worse than just leaving it undefined, but that's just my opinion. Mark also raised the point that " It also doesn't state where this infrastructure comes from or who maintains it." I expect that the answer is Oracle. But I think that putting this level of detail into the Bylaws would be a mistake, as it is an execution matter not a governance rule. > >> The Governing Board > >> has no direct authority over technical or release decisions." > > > > But there is a technical Appeals Process. I think that the statement is actually correct as written, as it says "...no _direct_ authority...". The concept that is being captured is that the Board isn't going to be meddling in technical and release decisions being made by the projects and the OpenJDK Lead. Which I suspect we all believe is a good thing. Perhaps a solution to the confusion would be to say "Except as noted in 'Technical Appeals Process', the Governing Board has no direct authority over technical or release decisions."
