Apologies for coming in late, my dev@ mail wasn't getting read, oops! Have people considered:
* What is the definition of "Open Source"? Shouldn't we either define this in detail, or explicitly reference the well-known OSI definition? * Code Adding a point noting that the project produces software that does some useful function on it's own? I.e. that the software product produced is useful to some users as-is, without requiring any other software, in particular a single vendor's software? I.e a mature Apache project wouldn't produce some blank framework that doesn't actually run or produce output without some vendors own plugin to make it work. * LC40 s/bound by/agree to and are bound by/ to emphasize this point? * QU40 - this is a great point, and helped me understand the difference between this model and other requirements/docs. I.e. a "mature Apache project" will do this, but newer TLPs or Incubator podlings or pTLPs may well not do this - which is fine, as long as it's clear to users. * CS10 - am I the only one who finds the wording here (and in CO60) a little confusing? Or rather: should we publish this document as explicitly applies to Apache projects (i.e. clarify where we mean committers/PMC members in terms of specific roles) or should we keep it more generic (and call them contributors, etc.) I.e. for some projects, committers do have decision powers over code changes within the project - but not on personnel changes (which is only the PMC). * CS40 should be updated to directly refer to the Voting rules. * CS50 should be updated to (somehow, I'm not a wordsmith today) to ensure the community has time to respond to synopses of decisions made off-list before irrevocable changes are made. I.e. if you have a big meetup and decide to do X, post the notes and decision on the list - and then wait 72 hours to allow new feedback from the list to shape how X gets finished. * IN20 should this be updated to note something like "and decisions made are made for the good of the project as a whole, and not outside corporations or employers"? This is tricky to word correctly, because many employees may have to fundamentally act in their employer's interests in financial or other legal contexts. But some sort of hint or emphasis on making decisions for the good of the project as a whole and all of it's users is an important point to make somehow. Thanks, - Shane
