accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:01:23 GMT
I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and adding a
missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring consensus
approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.

[Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]

I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:

> Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sean-
> >
> > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to
> do
> > > it yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in
> this
> > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> Member".
> > >>
> > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.
> > >>
> > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not
> > expect
> > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > >> >
> > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the
> > first
> > >> > vote.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> Email
> > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > >> > > implementation?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >> > > >wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> getting
> > the
> > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> emeritus.
> > So,
> > >> > no
> > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is
back via
> > >> email
> > >> > > (the
> > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> ctubbsii@apache.org
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement"
even
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a
possible
> > thing,
> > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in
the
> initial
> > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so
I'm glad
> > you
> > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account
for feedback
> > that
> > >> > arose
> > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There
was a lot of
> > >> > > > (excellent)
> > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
omissions,
> > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat
likely to be
> > >> there.
> > >> > > :)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
Christopher.
> > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed
to the
> list
> > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> falling
> > >> back
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan)
action,
> majority
> > >> > > approval
> > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan
and product
> > release
> > >> > > > actions
> > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions
are
> > >> intentionally
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
based
> on
> > >> > Mike's
> > >> > > > > list
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans
are
> > estimates
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as
we have a page
> > for
> > >> > > those
> > >> > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now.
As with
> > other
> > >> > > > issues, I
> > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful
that we can
> > call
> > >> a
> > >> > > > second
> > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> // Bill Havanki
> > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> // 443.686.9283
> > >>
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message