couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Project by-laws
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:28:07 GMT
Hi Noah,

awesome! thanks a lot. Here are some comments:

3.1. Users

"Users can contribute to Apache projects by providing feedback"

-> why not explicitly writing "... can contribute to the Apache CouchDB
project ..." ?

"Users can also participate in the project by being involved the community,
either at " ...

-> there is a word missing I think: " by being involved IN the community"?

"Users can also participate in the project by being involved the community,
either at the ASF or elsewhere."

-> the intention of this sentence is not completely clear to me ... can you
explain it?

"Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are
contributors."

-> this sounds like there is no difference between Users and Contributors
... what is fine for me but is this what it should say here? Maybe it
should read:

"Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are ALSO
contributors."


3.3. Committers

First paragraph: in the first sentence singular is used and in the
following sentence plural for committer. This is a bit confusing. But maybe
this is correct and my lack of knowledge of the English language.

"... to all of public project infrastructure ..."

should read:

"... to all of public THE project infrastructure ..."

3.4. Project Management Committee

-> maybe write "3.4. Project Management Committee (PMC)"

"This includes:"
-> maybe add responsible to take action, if CoC violations are coming to
the PMC's attention

4. Decision Making

second paragraph:

" must be brought for the lists for the decision making process to take
place in the open. "

-> I don't understand this completely ... can you explain this? Or should
it read:

" must be brought TO the lists for the decision making process to take
place in the open. " ?

4.1. Lazy Consensus

"As long as you do your work in the open the community has plenty of
opportunity to object."

comma after "open" and I think it should read "plenty of opportunities"?

4.2. Discussion

"Voting is to be considered a failure mode of discussion."

-> hm - are there really no situations where a vote is sth. someone wants
to have? As far as I understood, voting is the main way to get a clear
consensus.

4.5. Approval Models

"The ASF has a voting tool specifically designed to enable this process."

-> we should link to a resource here

5.1. Subject Tags

-> should we add the tag [NEWS] into the list?

That's all so far from my side after the first read ...

Again - thanks for this!

Cheers

Andy



On 29 April 2014 21:50, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Okay folks. I've prepared a first draft of our bylaws. Concrit very
> much appreciated.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017
>
> On 28 April 2014 23:48, Joan Touzet <joant@atypical.net> wrote:
> > My line of thinking was along the lines of what Ellis and Stroustrup did
> in The Annotated C++ Language Reference Manual[1]. It often helps to have a
> human being explain what some things mean through the use of examples or
> extra text. A crisp legal-ish statement of the rule followed by some
> explanatory text would be most helpful, and friendlier for new people to
> get their heads around.
> >
> > -Joan
> >
> > [1] http://www.stroustrup.com/arm.html
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnewson@apache.org>
> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> > Cc: andy@nms.de
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:13:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Project by-laws
> >
> >
> > It does seem justified though, it’s obviously to make it easy to refer
> unambiguously to a particular item, that doesn’t mean to say we can’t
> render it better than this. I would rather not have a document that states
> everything twice if we can avoid it.
> >
> > B.
> >
> > On 28 Apr 2014, at 22:09, Joan Touzet <joant@atypical.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I have form issues with these bylaws, primarily that they are
> intimidating
> >> in their layout and structure. Legal-style #.#.#.# can be especially
> hard
> >> to read and encodes a viewpoint that is grounded in the American legal
> >> system. The HTML formatting in this specific example is also difficult
> >> to read
> >>
> >> That said, perhaps it is appropriate that our bylaws be this way at
> least
> >> in part. Would anyone object to a plain-language summary up top in
> addition
> >> to the legal #.#.#.# commentary?
> >>
> >> -Joan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>



-- 
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!

http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de

GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588

https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc

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