couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noah Slater <>
Subject Re: [NOTICE] Updated Bylaws - final readthrough before vote
Date Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:12:07 GMT
Here goes, via email:

"bolded text     for" (formatting error?)

"copyrighted by" (the original "copyright" here is more correct I believe)

"will be supported by a healthy community over time" -- was originally
"seen to by", meaning, code will be produced by the community. I
believe this edit changes the meaning

"taken on those mailing lists" -> "taken on the mailing lists"

"A contributor is someone who adds value, content or supports the
project in some way." -- was originally "is contributing to". I don't
understand why this has changed. There's no need to clarify, perfectly
fine to just say a contributor is someone who contributes. It's a
simple definition because it's a simple concept. No need to complicate

"Community" -- would add "(community management, marketing, etc.)"

"(which includes management, design, UX, branding, marketing...)" -> "
(blogging, design, UX, branding, etc.)"

"(includes globalisation/internationalisation and examples)" ->
"(docs, examples, l10n/i18n, etc.)"

"Managing confidentially-reported security issues" -> "Managing security issues"

Cut " to drive most of these tasks as they arise."

"uses the Apache STeVe approach" -> "uses Apache STeVe"

"are made on our mailing lists via" -- cut "on our mailing lists",
redundant info

"If lazy consensus cannot be reached and discussion does not result in
general agreement on a course of action, move to a vote." -- seems to
be a repetition of the preceding para? Would also replace "general
agreement" with "consensus" so we're using the same term throughout

"If a change is made to project assets that a committer determines
will adversely impact the integrity of the project, committers can
exercise veto power." -- disagree with this sentence. Too broad. We
need to very carefully think about what we are going to allow vetoes
on. When we discussed this on IRC, I suggested it was any code changes
to a shippable branch of a source tree. I stand by that. But think we
should have this discussion on the ML and agree on it before moving a
summary to the bylaws.

Most of the above is minor. The last point is a major issue though.

Thanks again for picking this up and driving it Joan!

On 19 July 2014 21:58, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> Joan, how would you prefer my feedback? Edits made directly to the
> doc, or via email? There are some things I'd like to change.
> On 17 July 2014 06:23, 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:
>> Changes made since the last version can be viewed here:
>> The primary changes were:
>>   1. Bolded text now serves as a intro guide for new participants and
>>      highlights the important points of which they should be aware.
>>      This should make absorbing the long document easier for newcomers.
>>   2. Reworked text in the veto section to clarify misinterpretations.
>>      There *are* some semantic changes here, so please re-read this
>>      section carefully.
>>   3. Compromise on the COPDOC section: acronym removed, concept remains.
>>   4. Various grammar edits for clarity.
>> At this point, the bylaws are mostly stable, but there may remain some
>> tweaks to the text necessary to ensure they match how we have been
>> running the project for some time now. We (the PMC) acknowledge that
>> they are not perfect, but we do not want to let the perfect to be the
>> enemy of the good (thanks to Voltaire), so we're moving ahead with them
>> in the state they're in.
>> 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.
>> It is my intent to call a formal vote on these bylaws as of Monday, June
>> 21. PLEASE take the time to make a final read-through and get any
>> corrections to me before then.
>> Per the proposed terms in the bylaws, this non-technical vote will
>> be by majority approval with no vetos allowed. Further, ALL ACTIVE
>> COMMITTERS are respectfully asked to cast their vote at that time.
>> -Joan Touzet
> --
> Noah Slater

Noah Slater

View raw message