I very much prefer to set a bar for active. The only time the inactive PMC members come out of the closet is if they are rallied to vote for a controversial issue. If you're not involved in the project (anymore), I don't think you should be allowed to have a binding vote.
I do agree that we shouldn't set the bar too high, but participating in a vote or sending a couple of emails to the list every six months isn't really too much to ask, is it? As for the mentors, they all qualify as 'medium' active members, especially when compared to some others... EdB On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 >> -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
