couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Date Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:06:14 GMT

On 19 Jul 2014, at 10:46 , Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Joan Touzet <> wrote:
>> After discussion with Noah Slater today, and as discussed in the CouchDB
>> IRC meeting today, I will be driving the bylaws and CoC through to votes
>> and formal adoption.
>> Based on unaddressed comments in the previous mailing list discussion, I
>> have updated the proposed bylaws text. Those updates are here:
> Where is the short version? Are people really expecting that other
> will want to contribute to the project if they have to read this long,
> very procedural document, with a matrix i can barely read except if i
> put my browser in full screen?

As far as I understand Joan, the short version is the bold sentences
throughout the page.

“**If this is your first time through this document, read this introduction,
then all the bolded text for a summary of the bylaws.**”

> I am not saying we should not have a detailed description somewhere of
> the procedures (which already exist in the apache website and could be
> linked), but  these "bylaws" are not very engaging neither friendly.
> I don't think I am welcomed if i had to read that stuff just to
> interact with the project.

The bylaws are by definition a specialisation of the guidelines the ASF
gives us. We have been discussing this specific point, I don’t understand
why it is raised again.

> Compare with
> and
> Imo the "bylaws" should be replaced by something in this vein. Ie a
> document engaging the community to contribute and say what are means,
> describe some procedures. Not a thing looking like rules of procedure.

These serve a different purpose. We can totally have a separate introduction
document “How to contribute to Apache CouchDB” as well, and we should, but
that is separate from the bylaws.

> I think this a point that people should consider  when they will vote
> on the current proposal. Friendliness and simplicity are true key
> points when it's about collaboration.
> About the current document I have a  couple of remarks:
> - Lazy concensus definition should be more precise. A definition like:
> "When you are convinced that you know what the community would like to
> see happen, you can simply assume that you already have consensus and
> get on with the work. We call this lazy consensus. You don't have to
> insist that people discuss or approve your plan, and you certainly
> don't need to call a vote. Just assume your plan is okay unless
> someone says otherwise." . What is a consensus?

Consensus is agreement, added that in parenthesis.

> - Votes. These are very binary votes. 0, 1 and the negatives but we
> miss the fractions. Like defined there:
> It should be added imo.

This is addressed: “Occasionally people choose to vote with larger amounts to indicate
strong feelings, or in fractional amounts to convey support or disagreement without the
full weight of a +1 or -1 vote.”

I’m in favour of the simplified list of votes, for the same simplicity reasons you
state above :)

> - there should be a reference to the code of conduct in Discussion so
> people knows what the rules the conduct.

Are you referring to this section from the PMC explanation? “This includes strict
hat wearing, equitable decision making, and exemplary conduct.”

The “conduct” in this sentence is just the english term for “how to behave”, the
code of conduct is valid for everyone in the community, not just the PMC members.

If not, what are you referring to?


> My 2 cents.
> - benoit.

View raw message