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  
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus.   
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.




Mime
View raw message