logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org>
Subject Project bylaws (was Re: [VOTE] PMC vote on Elias Ross as a new Log4j committer)
Date Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:43:28 GMT

On Nov 21, 2006, at 4:02 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:

> Hi,
> On 11/21/06, Curt Arnold <carnold@apache.org> wrote:
>> Per the project bylaws (http://logging.apache.org/site/bylaws.html),
>> it appears that both a subproject (described in the actions section)
>> and PMC vote (second paragraph after Committers) are required to
>> grant new commit rights.  This message is to inform the PMC of the
>> results of the subproject vote and to initiate a PMC vote to confirm
>> the log4j vote.
> This is kind of surprising.  I thought the bylaws say lazy consensus
> of the PMC, not a formal vote, so all that was required is a message
> from one of the log4j committers to the logging PMC saying "hey, we've
> voted this guy in, so unless you have any objections, please send an
> email to root@apache.org asking for his account..."
> But if a vote is required, here's my +1 again.

The description of "Lazy Consensus" in the bylaws says that it  
requires "3 binding +1 votes", so I don't see how you could have a  
Lazy Consensus of PMC members without having a call for a vote by  
that definition.  The definition of "Lazy Consensus" is different at  
However, as all the log4j votes were from PMC members and the only  
abstaining PMC members (Mark and Ceki) have been quiet for a while,  
it should be a only a formality.

> On a separate note, we should remove these bylaws altogether.  We just
> had a discussion about this on general@incubator.a.o (see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- 
> general&m=116405409724466&w=2
> for the key message).   Apparently project-level bylaws, like
> Jakarta's from which we copied ours, are invalid in the formal sense
> that we seem to be applying them here.
> Yoav

I could support that.  I've proposed modifying the bylaws a few years  
ago to streamline the double votes required for releases among other  
things.  Eliminating the project bylaws altogether would likely  
accomplish all the benefits that a streamlining would and would  
eliminate the possibilities for conflicts between LS definitions and  
ASF definitions.  I think it would essentially make everything  
requiring a vote (like a release) a single PMC vote.  Let's make it  
open for discussion for a little while and if it still seems like a  
good idea, let's put it to a PMC vote.

View raw message