I would prefer we not set a bar for active. Our former mentors are rarely active on the public lists, but I like having them involved in the vote and discussion on the private list.
-Alex ________________________________________ From: omup...@gmail.com [omup...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of OmPrakash Muppirala [bigosma...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:48 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Cc: Justin Mclean Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex Bylaws On Sep 30, 2013 5:59 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <jef...@dot-com-it.com> wrote: > > On 9/30/2013 7:19 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Looks like as part of the graduation process that we didn't get together and come up with a list of bylaws for Apache Flex. >> >> Some example Apache project bylaws: >> http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html >> http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/Bylaws >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws >> http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html >> >> As well as listing out the roles and responsibilities on the project it needs to spell out the voting rules. >> >> Here's some of the things we would need to reach consensus on. If PMC members (and others) could indicate >> their preferences to there questions below we'll start getting a document together based on this what other >> Apache projects have done. >> >> If you have no strong preference indicate that and this is not a vote, just more of what you think bests fits in our >> community. >> >> 1. Voting procedure for committers >> a) lazy-majority (more +1s than -1s) >> b) lazy-consensus (no -1's) >> c) consensus (3 +1's no -1's) > > b > >> 2. Voting procedure for PMC members >> a) lazy-majority (more +1s than -1s) >> b) lazy-consensus (no -1's) >> c) consensus (3 +1's no -1's) >> d) 2/3 majority (3 +1's and twice an many +1 as -1) > > c >> >> 3. Voting procedure for Chair >> a) lazy-majority (more +1s than -1s) >> b) lazy-consensus (no -1's) >> c) consensus (3 +1's no -1's) >> d) 2/3 majority (3 +1's and twice an many +1 as -1) > > c >> >> 4. Length of term of Chair >> a) until they resign >> b) 1 year >> d) reviewed every year with option to continue >> c) other > > d >> >> 5. Voting procedure on changing bylaws >> a) lazy-majority (more +1s than -1s) >> b) lazy-consensus (no -1's) >> c) consensus (3 +1's no -1's) >> d) 2/3 majority (3 +1's and twice an many +1 as -1) > > d >> >> I notice other Bylaws use the word active a lot eg "active PMC", "active committers", but don't seem to define it. >> Should we try and define or at least give some guidelines what an active person on the project is? >> There seems to be a vague "not contributing to the project for 6 months" in one or two of the existing bylaws. > > > I guess we'd have to define formally what a contribution is. Is it activity on a mailing list? Actual commits? Jira activity? Mailing list moderation? > It sounds like it is a hard thing to concretely define. Do you want to take a stab at defining it? I think the bar should be pretty low. Something like at least one email on dev, users or private in 6 months. Or a commit in 6 months. > > -- > Jeffry Houser > Technical Entrepreneur > http://www.jeffryhouser.com > 203-379-0773 >
