On 2 January 2014 18:58, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > It is now 17 days since I forwarded the proposal, I am aware it has been > christmas, but during 17 days there has not been a single +1 or -1. > Actually there has been no comment (relating to the content of the > proposal) at all.
However, there has been comment which has rather obscured the original e-mail content. And the email itself had a subject that was not a standard VOTE e-mail. > I have prepared an update to the the LABS homepage, where we list the > projects according to their status and activity, but I assume the interest > for such a change is similar low. > > I made the proposal for 2 good reasons: > - I strongly believe in LABS as our frontier where committers can play > without too many restrictions. > - Tim gave me a hint to go ahead, even though I am not part of LABS. > > It seems I was wrong and LABS is something else, than what it presents. At > least the hurdle to get a lab seems higher than becomming committer in a > "normal" ASF project. > > I dont know what to do next. Could the PMC group be kind enough to inform > me, if I should stop disturbing or how we get a discussion on changes going. I am not on the PMC, but what I would do is to send a formal [VOTE] email re-stating what the proposal is. > thanks in advance. > rgds > jan I. > > > > On 22 December 2013 22:15, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> top posting. >> >> I wish everyone a merry christmas and some relaxing time with those close >> to you. >> >> my wish for christmas is simple, a couple of +1 signalling that somebody >> read and agree with my proposal :-) >> >> all the best. >> rgds >> jan I. >> >> >> >> On 20 December 2013 01:04, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 20 December 2013 00:51, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 19 December 2013 23:30, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> > On 17 December 2013 23:12, David Crossley <cross...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> jan i wrote: >>>> >> > After a couple of hick ups, I hope this mail comes through. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > even though its something PMC should discuss on private-labs@ I >>>> sent the >>>> >> > mail to labs@ due to some mail problems, sorry for that. >>>> >> >>>> >> Jan, i just want to reply to this part at this stage. >>>> >> No, it is not something that should be discussed on private@ lists. >>>> >> Here is one reference, there may be others: >>>> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy >>>> >> So everything on this list unless it is personnel matters, etc. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > I agree with you, but you should see, what at least one project (AOO) >>>> put >>>> > in the private list, so I guess I am just a burned kid. >>>> >>>> I agree that there are some threads on AOO private that almost >>>> certainly do not belong there. >>>> >>>> However it is not just personnel stuff that may need to be private. >>>> For example trademark discussions. >>>> >>> +1 >>> >>>> >>>> If you feel that a particular AOO private thread should be held >>>> elsewhere then it is best to raise it ASAP in the thread. >>>> >>> sorry it was just to explain, the reasoning behind my words, I believe >>> the Apache way is a big wide highway with not only one correct solution, >>> and in every project you have to adapt to a slightly different way of doing >>> things. >>> >>> Any problem I might have (which I dont) with any project I particate in >>> will of course be discussed in private on that projects list. >>> >>> labs is like infra different than "normal" projects, it is a project that >>> goes across other project (which is what makes it interesting), and >>> therefore I reckon focus are higher on the community value. >>> >>> rgds >>> jan I. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > However I do hope something is going on private, since this list is >>>> dead >>>> > silent, and I had hoped at least for somebody to comment on my requst, >>>> and >>>> > not to forget proposal to change the web page. >>>> > >>>> > rgds >>>> > jan I. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> -David >>>> >> >>>> >> > rgds >>>> >> > jan I. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >> > From: jan i <j...@apache.org> >>>> >> > Date: 16 December 2013 01:10 >>>> >> > Subject: [request for Vote] change of bylaws >>>> >> > To: priv...@labs.apache.org >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Hi. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Not being PMC (not even labs committer) I can only request a vote, >>>> >> > which I hereby do. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > The charter [1] and homepage [2] for labs says: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The creation of >>>> >> > the lab requires a PMC lazy consensus vote >>>> >> > (at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours). >>>> >> > >>>> >> > However the foundations glossary [3] defines lazy consensus today >>>> as: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > *Lazy consensus*(Also called 'lazy approval'.) A decision-making >>>> policy >>>> >> > which assumes general consent if no responses are posted within a >>>> defined >>>> >> > period. For example, "I'm going to commit this by lazy consensus if >>>> >> no-one >>>> >> > objects within the next three days." Also see Consensus >>>> >> > Approval< >>>> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>, >>>> >> > Majority >>>> >> > Approval < >>>> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval>, >>>> >> > and the description of the voting >>>> >> > process <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I propose the bylaws to be changed as follows: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The lab >>>> creation >>>> >> > requires PMC lazy concensus, if no PMC sends a mail with -1 to >>>> >> > l...@apache.org within the lazy consensus period, the lab request >>>> is >>>> >> > accepted. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Change in the bylaws [2] requires 2/3 vote from the PMC members. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Voting positively on this will also solve >>>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LABS-512 >>>> >> > >>>> >> > As mentioned in my other mail, I strongly believe in labs and would >>>> >> > like to help to "rejuvenate" labs and put it back into the central >>>> >> > place it belongs. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > thanks in advance for your time (and vote) >>>> >> > >>>> >> > rgds >>>> >> > jan I. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > [1] >>>> >> >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_11_15.txt >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > [2] http://labs.apache.org/bylaws.html >>>> >> > [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html >>>> >> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org >>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
