On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:46 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 19 January 2014 19:28, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:14 PM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> > On 19 January 2014 17:30, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On 01/19/2014 05:23 PM, Santiago Gala wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Jukka Zitting < >> jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:00 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Jukka Zitting seems to have been active on some lists in late 2013 >> >> >> >> >> >> I still am. The reason I didn't participate in this vote was that I >> >> >> asked to resign from the Labs PMC (see private@labs) due to lack of >> >> >> time and sufficient interest. >> >> >> >> >> >> As for this vote and the related debate, here's what I'd do: >> >> > >> >> > +1 to all three proposals. >> >> > >> >> > The VP can take these executive decisions on a consensus basis. They >> >> > can be re-endorsed or rejected later on, when the PMC has been cleaned >> >> > up and the bylaws amended. Paralysis causes greater damage than a >> >> > wrong formal decision, IMO. >> >> > >> >> >> >> I seem to recall the board making a decision that a PMC can't simply >> >> drop a PMC member unless the board agrees with it. Either they need to >> >> resign, or the PMC needs to take on more people to reach the required >> >> quorum for changing the bylaws. I have tried reaching out to the PMC >> >> members I know haven't been active for a while, but so far I haven't >> >> received a reply. >> >> >> >> Since the labs bylaws does not have any special paragraph for this >> > situation (like some other projects), and there does not seem to be >> > specific paragraph in the ASF bylaws, removing a PMC member must be seen >> as >> > the opposite of adding a member, meaning vote and board aproval. >> >> Daniel was right on this, the board has reserved removals for itself: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal >> >> I don't expect removing them would be particularly contentious - >> especially given we'd happily have them back if they wanted. >> >> > Adding members to "water out" the inactive members, call for quite a >> number >> > of new PMCs (considering the amount that did not reply to a personal >> mail). >> > Its clearly easier to ask the board, to ask all PMCs if they want to >> > continue, and remove those who do not reply. >> > >> > >> >> I am considering doing what sebb suggested (and what jan did do, if >> >> memory serves me right) and copying the correspondence (or attempt at >> >> it) to private@. >> >> >> > you have a good memory. >> > >> > At this point it seems I cannot be of real help, should I be mistaken >> > please tell me. I have a new homepage more or less prepared, together >> with >> > a couple of proposals to help reactivate labs, I will forward these once >> we >> > have a working PMC group. >> >> You got 8 binding votes on this thread. It's true that we fell short >> of the high bar needed for a bylaws change, but I'd like to understand >> why you think the PMC isn't "working" enough to do whatever else >> you're proposing? [And no, I don't understand why those same folks >> didn't vote on Gabriela's lab - probably holidays and personal lives >> were in the way] >> > > You answer your own question :-) Gabriela was asked to extend the voting > period, which did not help.
True. That was a problem and your bylaw change proposal would fix it. Unfortunately, that uncovered another problem with too many inactive PMC members - which Daniel is now pursuing. Patience is definitely needed here. > I am sure you followed the mails I sent to get the 8 votes, that should not > be needed. Agreed. > I have asked twice if the PMC group was interested in an updated homepage > without getting any feedback, following the apache way, I should (and will) > post patches (not being committer) which needs somebody in the other end, > to actively handle the patch. Honestly, I haven't seen such a thread. If it's buried in some other thread, I suggest you start a new thread with the idea. We don't have traditional "committers" - as we don't have very much shared code. If I were in your situation, I'd post a sample of the redesign on my people.a.o/~ area and point folks here to it asking if anyone has any problems with you moving on with the redesign. If no one disagrees, you already have the commit bits to do it. > Labs should have a zone, but currently there are no labs zone, so I also > suggested that the PMC request a vm (which I would prepare) so committers > have a chance to test their ideas, but again no response. I reckon no one has felt they needed a zone. Absent some researcher saying they need one, why should we have a zone? I actually missed that suggestion too - so I'd suggest you clearly start a new thread for each suggestion like this - I believe you'd get better visibility. --tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
