couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Thu, 15 May 2014 15:49:35 GMT
Jan/Bob, can I get your review of this too please?

On 13 May 2014 23:23, Sebastian Rothbucher
<sebastianrothbucher@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1
> As it is
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>> Am 11.05.2014 um 17:35 schrieb Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>:
>>
>> Community,
>>
>> 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 <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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Mime
View raw message