couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Metson <met...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Date Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:26:46 GMT
Noticed a few typos/niggles, I think:  

2 "to do so in the best interests of the Foundation” -> "to do so in the best interests
of the Foundation and Project” (I suppose I could do something that was good for ASF but
not  good for CouchDB… though not sure what…)

2.1 "third-party support forms” -> "third-party support forums”

3.3 I’d define binding at the end of this section, and explain why it’s useful and not,
as some online definitions call them “noise” or “a waste of time”, since we want to
encourage voting. I think N non-committers could vote positively on something and get on with
it without a binding vote from a committer/PMC, for instance.  

Otherwise LGTM - thanks for herding this through.
Cheers
Simon


On Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 23:39, Joan Touzet wrote:

> 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 (mailto:wohali@apache.org)>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org (mailto: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 (mailto:nslater@apache.org)>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org (mailto: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 (mailto: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