On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Adam R. B. Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The voting section does refer to active committers -- a term we've
not defined
Good catch.
Actually, taken together with
,
| A Committer is considered emeritus by
Hi,
I'll call for a vote on the draft from
http://wiki.apache.org/gump/Drafts/ProjectBylaws early next week so
that we have a chance to finalize this step in time for the board
meeting on 21 Apr.
If you have any comments, wish to change anything, please go ahead and
modify the draft - or discuss
Leo Simons wrote:
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
If you have any comments, wish to change anything, please go ahead and
modify the draft - or discuss stuff here.
I like!
Umm .. that's a worry!
;-)
--
||
| Magic by Merlin
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
Ok, whilst sitting in the dentist's waiting room I was able to read these.
FWIIW: I can now attest that reading bylaws is more fun than having root
canal work. I won't say how much. ;-)
:-)
The only reason I raise this is that 'active committers' can have binding
vetoes,
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
If you have any comments, wish to change anything, please go ahead and
modify the draft - or discuss stuff here.
I agree we have a bit of an issue with the committers (and 'active
committers').
A little ambiguity is actually okay with me ;)
The only reason I raise this is
