Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aharui@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.21 as permitted sender)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:57:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Apache project bylaws
Thread-Topic: Apache project bylaws
Thread-Index: Ac7LSS+fApbMbdgCRhWpN7iGI3POsg==
Message-ID: <CE854797.F45B%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALEq1Z_dGrAp0bcZrsKQVhGMQZYiYDwsT22RkAWmKE-SpAkPbA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Reviving this thread.  I've invited others to join in as well.

As a reminder, the proposed changes are here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201310.mbox/%3cC
E743D6A.14A96%25aharui@adobe.com%3e

And my goal is not just to fix up the voting doc, but to try to define a
default set of bylaws so projects don't have to, or have less to decide.

-Alex

On 10/4/13 11:25 AM, "Doug Cutting" <cutting@apache.org> wrote:

>On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific thing.
>> However, the basic rule is that only PMC members have binding votes, and
>> all others are either discouraged from voting (to keep the noise down)
>>or
>> else have their votes considered of an indicative or advisory nature
>>only.
>
>I'd suggest dropping the bit about 'discouraged from voting' and
>replace 'advisory only' with simply 'advisory'.  A non-PMC vote may be
>taken quite seriously or it might not be.  The only points you need to
>make here is that non-PMC votes are not binding but are generally
>welcome.
>
>> Unless otherwise specified by a project's bylaws, only [active
>> members)(glossary.html#ActiveMembers) who have been active in the last 6
>> months may cast binding votes.  A different definition of active member
>> may also be set in a project's bylaws.
>
>I think that policy is less universal and I'd suggest not implying it
>was a default rule for all projects without bylaws.  Some projects
>have periods of low activity and I'd expect votes of PMC members to
>still be considered valid even if they've not contributed for six
>months.  For example, we want a low-activity project to be able to
>apply a few patches and make a release even if fewer than three PMC
>members were active in applying those patches over the last six
>months.
My thinking here is that the definition of "active" includes other
activities besides just applying changes to code so that even low-activity
projects must have folks who count as active because they've at least
filed board reports.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org