couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Mon, 12 May 2014 06:40:47 GMT
I sent these to Noah during the mail server outage. Cc'ing the ML for

Section 2:
  - Link the text "the Apache Way" instead of "a set of common principles."
  - "community should be *A* fun and rewarding place to be for everyone involved."

Section 3:
  - Is there an ASF link for their definition of "hat?" This might be confusing to a non-English
speaker. Even a glossary link - to explain that wearing a hat means playing a role, or acting
within the expectations of that role.
  - Possibly move the "hats" discussion to after you define all the different roles, I'm not
  - For the PMC Chair term, we should clarify whether consecutive means "more than 2 in a
row" (unlike the US President) and whether that is calendar year, fiscal year, etc.

Section 4:
  - Link to a definition of lazy consensus provided by the ASF or another project if available.
  - Bold "silence is assent." This is a key thing people need to understanda bout lazy consensus.
  - You might want to include the entire content of the +1/0/-1/fractions section from the link. Your definitions are different thana those stated.
  - Explain who is allowed to veto - any user? Committer? PMC member? Is this on any PR? Any
line of code? Any email to dev@? user@? Can a crackpot come by and -1 the entire project with
an email to user@, requiring a vote for validity? ;) The definition of "change to code" is
too broad as it stands in this document. The table shows challenging a veto but not the veto
  - Section 4.6 put "ASF Board approval" so it's clear what board we're talking about

Recommend adding links once this is done in this document to the proposed Code of Conduct
and Diversity statements so that they have additional weight by being referenced by the bylaws.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Slater" <>
To: "Noah Slater" <>
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:35:21 AM
Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)


Please do take the time to review this document. It's not that long,
or that complex. An online reading time calculator said it's about 14
minutes long. Your input at this stage would be very beneficial for
the project. (Anyone!)

On 7 May 2014 21:07, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> Hello folks,
> Please review our propose bylaws:
> I'd like a few more eyeballs on this before I move to a vote.
> Thanks,
> On 5 May 2014 18:35, Noah Slater <> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2014 10:54, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:
>>> I am not sure to see the interest of these by-laws. They look redundant
>>> to the the *practices* documented inside the apache foundation
>>> documentation:
>> The bylaws of the foundation are here:
>> They cover a completely different set of things at the foundation
>> level. And say very little about how projects must function.
>> The resources you linked to are, at best, recommendations. They are
>> not binding. And in some cases they are contradictory. These represent
>> past efforts to distil common practice across many different projects.
>> What our bylaws are doing is saying that we have specifically chosen
>> these interpretations, and that as a community we consider them
>> binding.
>>> - In 4.1 : the sentence "Objecting too far down the road will cause
>>>   problems.", and in 4.2 "If lazy consensus is not possible, you can
>>> move to a discussion" .
>>> The passage from a lazy consensus to a discussion is not clear. How it
>>> is decided? Who is deciding it?
>> Good catch.
>> I have updated the wording to:
>> "If lazy consensus fails (i.e. someone objects) you can start a
>> discussion or you can abandon the proposal."
>> Does this address your concerns?
>>> - In 4.2, there is "Proposals should be explained clearly and come with
>>>   adequate justification. Disagreements should be constructive and
>>> ideally come with alternative proposals. The goal is to reach a positive
>>> outcome for the project, not convince others of your opinion." .
>>> Sorry but I don't understand that part. How can you expect that people
>>> deeply attached to a project can't have an opinion on how it should
>>> works or be seen by the others? Also what is the point of a discussion
>>> if it's not to convince others that your idea is OK?
>> Interesting comment.
>> If you enter into a discussion with the objective of trying to
>> convince the other person, and they do the same, all that will happen
>> is that you argue with each other until one person runs out of energy.
>> I am more interested in the sort of discussion where both people put
>> aside preconceived notions, swap facts, debate points, and
>> cooperatively work towards a greater shared understanding of what is
>> being discussed.
>> The goal then is not "winning" (i.e. convincing the other) but
>> expanding knowledge. Even if that means that you have been convinced
>> by the other person.
>> Two people spend an hour arguing, and person A convinces person B of
>> their opinion. Typically, we would say that person A has won.
>> Try modelling that discussion so that knowledge and time spent are
>> considered valuable, instead of pride. Both A and B spend time, but
>> only B receives new knowledge. So who is the real winner?
>> This is important for the project because the first type of discussion
>> is not very valuable for us. The second is. That's why I put that the
>> end goal should be to reach a positive outcome for the project.
>>> Rather what is a bad opinion for the project (i.e. an expression of an
>>> idea) there? How do you put the limit?
>> It's not opinions that are bad. Instead: modes of discussion.
>>> - In 3.3 you added the notion of having "good people skills" for
>>>   commiters. How do you define "having good people skills"? This notion
>>> completely depends on the culture of the people interacting in the
>>> project. I propose to remove that sentence. It suffices to say that
>>> all contributors of the projects obey to the Code Of Conduct and make
>>> the Code Of Conduct enough generic.
>> How do you define good technical skills? This stuff is always
>> dependant on individual interpretation. My goal here is to make it
>> explicit that as a project we value people skills over technical
>> skills.
>> I would rather have someone who is helpful and cooperative on our
>> lists and who is only an average programmer, than someone who is
>> unhelpful and uncooperative who is an excellent programmer.
>> This is not usually the case for OSS projects. But I believe it is
>> important. Which is why I want to bake it inout our bylaws.
>>> - What about having the PMC members renewed each years by a vote of the
>>>   community? So they will be the choice of the community? PMC members
>>> could be proposed during a period by the community and then a vote will
>>> happen.
>> What benefits would this bring?
>>> - The same for a chair. We could make it renewable more often. For
>>>   example each 3 or 5 years.
>> I've included this in the draft already. I am proposing that the chair
>> is reelected every year.
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Noah Slater
> --
> Noah Slater

Noah Slater

View raw message