> 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
>>>
>>

Reply via email to