couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Wenk <a...@nms.de>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Sun, 11 May 2014 00:18:33 GMT
Hi,

I read the bylaws again.

3. Roles and Responsibilities -> last paragraph "Committers and PMC
members are never removed": this content feels a bit out of context. Maybe
move it to 3.3 and 3.5

3.3 Committers -> third paragraph "...  it means you are committed to the
project ..." is double because it was already stated at the beginning of
the section.

The rest looks very good:)

Cheers

Andy


On 7 May 2014 21:07, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> Please review our propose bylaws:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017
>
> I'd like a few more eyeballs on this before I move to a vote.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On 5 May 2014 18:35, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 5 May 2014 10:54, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> 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:
> >
> > http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html
> >
> > 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
> > https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> 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