On 2 January 2014 20:15, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 for the advice, I have issued a VOTE thread. rgds jan I. > > > 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> >
