couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Date Sat, 19 Jul 2014 22:39:35 GMT
Once again everyone, thank you for participating in this discussion,
even on a weekend.

Everything but the veto point seems resolved at this point - but please
correct me if I'm wrong.

Latest draft:

  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017

Changes since the draft I posted on July 17th:

  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=40511017&selectedPageVersions=78&selectedPageVersions=70
  

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Touzet" <wohali@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:36:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote

The main concern here is about "rule lawyering," i.e. upholding the 
letter of the law but not the spirit in which it was intended. I will
rephrase.

Old language
-------
Finally, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise language therein, as
a weapon against others acting in good faith is neither within the spirit of the bylaws themselves
nor considered acceptable behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the Project Management
Committee. (or PMC, see 2.4. below)
-------

New language
-------
Finally, use of these bylaws to enforce the letter of any rule and not its spirit (also known
as "rule lawyering") is not acceptable behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the
Project Management Committee. (or PMC, see 2.4. below)
-------

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 3:56:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote

On 18 July 2014 22:16, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>> Further, use of these bylaws, or especially any loopholes or imprecise
>> language therein, as a weapon against others acting in good faith is
>> neither within the spirit of the bylaws themselves nor considered
>> acceptable behaviour - and will be dealt with accordingly by the PMC.
>
> ^-- this paragraph might be worth adding to the bylaws.

This "weapon" language really concerns me. Can we reframe it please.

The bylaws, and the code of conduct, are there to enforce certain
standards of behaviour. And the people who are negatively impacted by
that behaviour ought to feel like they can apply these documents to
rectify bad situations.

By putting such frame-biased verbiage in the documents up front, I
believe we may be robbing them of their potential effectiveness. If I
felt marginalised or otherwise put upon by something going on in the
project, and I read that para, what I would take away from it is "do
not disturb the project, these bylaws are not for your use."

If we want to add a clarification to our official docs, I would
suggest we add a single sentence to them stating that we expect people
to act in good faith. Something like that. Nice and simple. We expect
everyone on the project to act in good faith at all times anyway. So
I'm not sure we need specific stipulations here.

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

Mime
View raw message