> 1. modified the name from "bylaws" to "community guidelines", following the latest ASF guideline
I want to make sure everyone is aware that there is a substantive difference between the meaning of "bylaw" and "guideline." Here's how the two words are defined in the Cambridge Dictionary: - Bylaw: "a rule that GOVERNS the members of an organization." [1] [emphasis added] - Guideline: "information intended to advise people on how something SHOULD BE done or what something SHOULD BE." [2] [emphasis added] Wikipedia, while not an authoritative source, provides useful context on how these terms are used in practice: - "A bylaw ... is a set of rules or law established by an organization or community so as to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority." [3] - "A guideline is similar to a rule, but are legally less binding as justified deviations are possible." [4] I am neither a lawyer nor a lexicographer, but it seems clear that a guideline carries no more weight than an officially approved suggestion, while a bylaw is a binding rule. It's up to the PMC to decide whether this document is a set of non-binding suggestions that SHOULD BE [5] followed or a set of binding laws that MUST BE followed, but in either case, I think the PMC needs to clearly convey their intention by using the correct word. [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bylaw [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/guideline [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=By-law&oldid=1215430864 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guideline&oldid=1185185478 [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119 [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread/h15qjp35ghg446xr5bnmmlg06p3hdoj9 On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I am totally aware of the situation of people on vacation and > traveling, and was in the process of talking and resolving some people's > comments in the doc, that's why I did not start the vote as originally > planned. I think we are all aligned on this, sorry I did not make it very > clear in the last reply. > > And thank you Owen, this would be a great idea! I also heard some concerns > of me driving this since I am also backed by a vendor. I considered opening > the access to all PMC members, but there are some technical challenges like > people's devlist email are not exactly their Gmail and many people are > still out of town, so things were also delayed at this front. Let us know > what you think is the best way to proceed! > > Best, > Jack Ye > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks Owen, I really appreciate the offer to moderate the discussion. >> I think that's a good idea and it would really benefit the community to >> have someone facilitating the discussion and drafting docs that does not >> have commercial interest. >> >> A number of PMC members have expressed that they're currently traveling >> or on vacation, which makes me concerned that the discussion isn't really >> reflective of the PMC. >> >> I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we might want to proceed. >> >> Thanks, >> Dan >> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Owen >>> >>> Sorry I missed your message before replying. I agree, I think we >>> should take more time on the proposal. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 10:14 PM Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Sorry for coming into this conversation late, but I have a lot of >>> experience with writing the bylaws for Apache projects (Hadoop & ORC). As a >>> neutral third party (not working for Databricks or a cloud provider) who >>> has a lot of Apache experience, I'd like to offer my service as a moderator >>> for the discussion. I don't think it is appropriate for a small group to >>> come back with a finished product for a final vote, especially during the >>> summer when lots of people are travelling, this process should be much more >>> gradual and inclusive. >>> > >>> > .. Owen >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:21 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi everyone, >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for all the comments and feedback on the document, I am >>> working with a few commenters on some additional changes and wording, and >>> then will carry out the vote. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> Jack Ye >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:02 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> To provide an update here, I have consolidated most of the comments >>> in the initial version, with the following changes: >>> >>> >>> >>> (1) condensed the section of roles and responsibilities, with >>> pointers to different pages in ASF and existing Iceberg project pages. >>> >>> >>> >>> (2) clarified voting details, regrading things like partial votes, >>> difference of voting on mailing lists vs voting on GitHub PRs >>> >>> >>> >>> (3) clarified the section regarding lazy consensus. There is a >>> definition difference between the ASF definition (no +1 vote needed) vs the >>> ORC definition (1 +1 vote). I renamed the ORC version as "minimum >>> consensus" instead. >>> >>> >>> >>> (4) updated "Modify Code" vote type to minimum consensus. This is a >>> bit different from ASF definition for code modification, but I think we are >>> coming to an agreement that the ASF definition is outdated. Minimum >>> consensus seems to make the most sense given the way we operate Iceberg so >>> far, which is basically at least 1 committer other than the author needs to >>> approve a PR before merging. >>> >>> >>> >>> (5) updated all decisions regarding committers and PMC members and >>> guideline updates to majority approval, following the ASF guideline on >>> voting for procedural issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me know if there is anything else we see major disagreements >>> with, and I will organize a vote after 24 hours. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jack Ye >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:04 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> +1 for adding to the site. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am putting it as a doc for now since Google doc is easier to >>> comment (I think?). My plan is to: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> (1) publish it as a PR after a vote has passed. We can do one more >>> sanity check in the PR, but the information will be exactly as it is >>> presented in the Google doc, maybe adding some additional links to more >>> easily jump among the sections or to other pages in the site, fix some >>> grammar issues that were overlooked. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> (2) keep a changelog within the document itself. Because we have >>> moved the site multiple times in the past, I am not really confident that >>> we could just track history with Git commit history, especially with such >>> an important document. I would like to add a changelog section in the end, >>> documenting what change has been approved when, with links to devlist >>> discussions and votes. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For how we tackle the other topics, my plan is to pass the initial >>> version first, and then we just go through all the identified topics one by >>> one. I have a list of all topics in the original feedback collection >>> devlist thread. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Let me know what you think about these plans! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best, >>> >>>> Jack Ye >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:04 AM Ryan Blue >>> <b...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> +1 for adding this to the site once we agree on the changes. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One thing that has been raised several times but hasn't yet been >>> addressed is how we want to tackle this. Many of us have asked to review >>> the additional bylaws individually and discuss the purpose and merits of >>> each one. It's great to have an overall doc (much like our integrated PRs >>> to give context) but I think we should start having separate discussions >>> about the rationale for each bylaw to make progress. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Ryan >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:57 AM Micah Kornfield < >>> emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi Jack, >>> >>>>>> I think it would make sense to convert this to a PR, so it can be >>> version tracked in the future (and that way it avoids another review if the >>> intent is to transitition github)? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>> >>>>>> Micah >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:07 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback in the bylaws document discussion >>> thread! As suggested, I have removed all the topics that require further >>> debates, and created this new doc to serve as the initial version that we >>> can review and later vote. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3igb5NqSlYE3dq_qRsP3X2gwhe54fx-Sxq5hqyOe6I/edit >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> I will organize new devlist threads to discuss other topics to >>> amend the guidelines step by step, once this initial version is in. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> A few additional changes that I have already incorporated: >>> >>>>>>> 1. modified the name from "bylaws" to "community guidelines", >>> following the latest ASF guideline >>> >>>>>>> 2. renamed "lazy majority" and "lazy 2/3 majority" to "majority >>> approval" and "2/3 majority approval" >>> >>>>>>> 3. changed "Propose Removing Committer", "Propose Removing PMC >>> Member" to consensus approval, and added "Propose PMC Chair Change" >>> decision following the default Apache project community guidelines. >>> >>>>>>> 4. changed "Release Product" voting period to 5 days instead of >>> 3 days excluding weekends. >>> >>>>>>> 5. clarified the copyright of code in Apache Iceberg codebases >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The most important thing is probably to agree upon the 2/3 >>> majority approval for modifying the project guidelines, so we can have a >>> consistent voting method going forward. This initial introduction of the >>> bylaws will be voted using consensus approval. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Please take a look and comment about any additional changes >>> needed, and I will host a vote in 3 days. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>>> Jack Ye >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Ryan Blue >>> >>>>> Databricks >>> >>
