Thanks for the feedback, Matt. Anyone else got any feedback on this? Might cut a new vote.
On 24 June 2013 05:12, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > Noah, > > I agree that there needs to be a delineation. Here's my option on wording > describing what is non-technical: > > +3.4.2. Non-Technical Decisions > > +Non-technical decisions should normally be made by the entire community > using > +discussion-lead consensus-building, and not through formal voting. > + > +Non-technical decisions are defined as a decision that do not directly > affect > +the code in any branch of the project. > +Including coding, testing, documentation or management of the code base. > + > +Non-technical decisions can be made on whichever project mailing list is > most > +appropriate. > + > +Non-technical decisions cannot be vetoed, but if there is strong > opposition > +a formal vote can be used to resolve the dispute. > + > +If a formal vote is started for a non-technical decision, the vote will be > held > +as a lazy 2/3 majority of active committers. > + > +Any user, contributor, committer or PMC member can initiate a > non-technical > +decision making process. > > > > Matt Mullins > Cloud Platforms Implementation Engineer > Worldwide Cloud Services Citrix System, Inc. > +1 (407) 920-1107 Office/Cell Phone > matt.mull...@citrix.com > > > > > > > On 6/20/13 11:59 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > >Less terse follow up... ;) > > > >Note that our current by-laws effectively state that any technical > >decision > >needs to happen on dev@. I am just clarifying the intent. > > > >Note also that we currently do not define what a "technical decision" is, > >but it is my opinion that this is any decision which relates to the > >CloudStack source code. (We might want to make it a little broader than > >that. Open to suggestions.) > > > >Almost everything we do involves technology. Whether that is editing the > >website, wiki, JIRA, mailing lists, etc. That doesn't mean that those > >activities are "technical activities" or involve "technical decisions". > > > >Do you think our by-laws need a section clarifying technical vs. > >non-technical? What should it say? > > > > > >On 20 June 2013 15:14, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013, at 08:21 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > >> > Devs, > >> > > >> > I would like to call a vote on the following modification to our > >>by-laws. > >> > This is in response to the > >> > > >> > Summary of changes: > >> > > >> > * Addition of "3.4.2. Non-Technical Decisions" section. This specifies > >> > that > >> > non-technical decisions can be made on any appropriate list (i.e. > >> > marketing@) > >> > >> Erm. Does this mean that marketing can't make any technical decisions > >> about the Web site, for instance? > >> > >> I think this needs to be better worded. > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> jzb > >> -- > >> Joe Brockmeier > >> j...@zonker.net > >> Twitter: @jzb > >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >NS > > -- NS
