+1 (binding)
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:30 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
>
> Hi all,
>
> We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over th
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last
> couple of weeks [1], so I'd like to move this forward to a VOTE now.
> Of course, if there are still concerns or discussion points that
> people want to see ad
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Chip Childers wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>>
>> Technical decisions should normally be made by the entire community
>> using consensus
>> gathering, and not through formal voting.
>>
>> Technical d
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>
> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>
> Technical decisions should normally be made by the entire community
> using consensus
> gathering, and not through formal voting.
>
> Technical decisions must be made on a project development mailing list.
>
>
+1 (binding)
On 1/3/13 10:53 AM, "Sudha Ponnaganti" wrote:
>+1 (binding)
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:30 AM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
>
>Hi all,
>
>We've h
>
> Actually, that section doesn't deal with the question that Rohit
> raised really. He's asking about the result of challenging a veto,
> which is only addressed in the following:
>
> "The validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who
> has a binding vote. This does not neces
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On T
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> O
On Jan 3, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>>
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> +1 (b
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>> +1 (binding)
>>> Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>>>
>> 3. Veteos
> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is c
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> +1 (binding)
>> Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>>
> 3. Veteos
Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged?
>>>
>>> The "who" is anyone that can cast a bind
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>
3. Veteos
>>> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged?
>>>
>>
>> The "who" is anyone that can cast a binding vote on an issue.
>> Further, veto's are only applicable for
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Prasanna Santhanam
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:37:03AM +0530, Alex Huang wrote:
>> > > The question was if someone challenges a vote by committing a binding
>> > veto -1, and if their veto is challenged (say the reasons were not obvious)
>> > and they are as
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:37:03AM +0530, Alex Huang wrote:
> > > The question was if someone challenges a vote by committing a binding
> > veto -1, and if their veto is challenged (say the reasons were not obvious)
> > and they are asked for reason(s) what should be the timeline for the person
> >
> > The question was if someone challenges a vote by committing a binding
> veto -1, and if their veto is challenged (say the reasons were not obvious)
> and they are asked for reason(s) what should be the timeline for the person
> to reply/communicate. (say a case of someone trolling, the question
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>
3. Veteos
>>> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged?
>>>
>>
>> The "who" is anyone that can cast a binding vote on an issue.
>> Further, veto's are only applicable for
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the reply, casting binding vote.
>>> 3. Veteos
>> Who can Veto? Timeframe when a veto is challenged?
>>
>
> The "who" is anyone that can cast a binding vote on an issue.
> Further, veto's are only applicable for "lazy consensus" style formal
> votes or technical decisions
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> +1
>
> Some comments:
>
>>2.4.1.2. Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
> project.
>>2.4.1.1. Fostering, supporting and growing the project's community.
>>2.4.1.4. Speaking on behalf of the project.
>
> Should commit
+1 (binding)
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:30 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
Hi all,
We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last couple of
+1
Some comments:
>2.4.1.2. Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
project.
>2.4.1.1. Fostering, supporting and growing the project's community.
>2.4.1.4. Speaking on behalf of the project.
Should committers also participate in the above?
>3. Veteos
Who can Veto? Time
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <
prasanna.santha...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last
> > couple of weeks [1], so I'd like
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last
> couple of weeks [1], so I'd like to move this forward to a VOTE now.
> Of course, if there are still concerns or discussion points that
> people want
+1 (binding)
-Original Message-
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:30 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
Hi all,
We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last couple of
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 09:52 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>>
>> One quick follow up.
>>
>> If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website.
>> However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a
>> top level project (g
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> +1 binding
>
> There's a copy of your second draft here.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Bylaw+-+Draft
>
> --Alex
Thanks Alex.
I've updated it to reflect the latest version (the one we're voting on now).
I was origin
On 01/02/2013 09:52 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
One quick follow up.
If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website.
However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a
top level project (graduated from the incubator). I'd likely include
a header note indicating t
+1 (binding)
Nice job Chip!
> -Original Message-
> From: Rajesh Battala [mailto:rajesh.batt...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:05 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
>
> +1 binding
>
> -O
+1 binding
-Original Message-
From: Will Chan [mailto:will.c...@citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 8:44 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
+1 (binding)
From: Alex Huang [alex.hu...@citrix.com
+1 (binding)
From: Alex Huang [alex.hu...@citrix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:36 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
+1 binding
There's a copy of your second draft here.
https://cwiki.apach
o: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
>
> One quick follow up.
>
> If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website.
> However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a
> top level project (graduated from the incu
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:29:45AM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
> (included at the bottom of this email message) be adopted by the
> community.
+1 (binding)
Thanks for taking lead on this.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
http://dissocia
I was gonna comment, but figured that's where ya were going.
On Jan 2, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> One quick follow up.
>
> If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website.
> However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a
> top level project
One quick follow up.
If we approve the bylaw draft, I'll publish it to the website.
However, the document comes from the perspective of CloudStack being a
top level project (graduated from the incubator). I'd likely include
a header note indicating this issue. My preference is to approach the
pr
+1
-kd
>-Original Message-
>From: John Kinsella [mailto:j...@stratosec.co]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:05 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaws
>
>+1
>
>On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Chip Childers
>wrote
+1
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:29 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last
> couple of weeks [1], so I'd like to move this forward to a VOTE now.
> Of course, if there are still concerns or discussion points that
> people want to see a
+1
-sebastien
On Jan 2, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've had some good discussions on the proposed bylaws over the last
> couple of weeks [1], so I'd like to move this forward to a VOTE now.
> Of course, if there are still concerns or discussion points that
> people w
38 matches
Mail list logo
