couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Date Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:46:57 GMT
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?

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. Compare with

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.

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?

- Votes. These are very binary votes. 0, 1 and the negatives but we
miss the fractions. Like defined there:

It should be added imo.

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

My 2 cents.

- benoit.

View raw message