Nope. Sorry. Feel free to run with it. If not, I can see about doing another vote in the next few days.
On 24 July 2013 18:02, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> wrote: > Noah, > > Did you ever review / report / re-vote this? > > Thanks, > Matt > > > On 6/25/13 11:17 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > > >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 > > -- NS
