Hi,
> I'm not satisfied with the way the voting document [1] reads vs what folks
> say is the "default".
There seem to be a lot of assumed knowledge that doesn't match with the
documentation.
> I'm planning to push to get [1] updated so we and all other projects
> and podlings don't have to go t
On 01/10/2013 00:19, Justin Mclean wrote:
1. Voting procedure for committers
a) lazy-majority (more +1s than -1s)
I don't think this requires absolutely everyone to agree, if it doesn't
work out it's easy enough to change.
2. Voting procedure for PMC members
d) 2/3 majority (3 +1's and twice an
On 10/1/13 10:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> My point is just that we at least wait to see if the ASF comes up with
>>a more definitive set of defaults
>Do we know that this is being looked into? The short discussion on
>incubator@ seem to say it a post incubation issue and on general@
Hi,
> My point is just that we at least wait to see if the ASF comes up with a more
> definitive set of defaults
Do we know that this is being looked into? The short discussion on incubator@
seem to say it a post incubation issue and on general@ that it's reasonably
understood what the default
My point is just that we at least wait to see if the ASF comes up with a
more definitive set of defaults and then worry about filling in the rest.
Maybe they will dictate that, from this day forward, all committer and PMC
-1 votes are vetoes, projects no longer get a choice. Then that's one or
two
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Been suggested we call this document guideline not bylaws, I'm good with
> that.
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Draft+Guidelines
>
> I'd also like some feedback on what currently there if at all possible.
>
> I'd al
Hi,
> Personally, I'm leaning towards not having bylaws/guidelines, or at least
> waiting until we see if we can get folks on general@ to clean up the voting
> document.
It's not going to cover everything or if/when they can clear it up. And if they
do does it apply retroactively?It seems to
-Alex
From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:26 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex Bylaws
Hi,
Been suggested we call this document guideline not bylaws, I'm good with that.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluen
Hi,
Been suggested we call this document guideline not bylaws, I'm good with that.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Draft+Guidelines
I'd also like some feedback on what currently there if at all possible.
I'd also like to see a few other PMC members and others to have input on th
Hi,
> I think I'm seeing a contradiction .
Ha ha ;-)
Active at the time the vote is called for fixes that, but yes it's still open
to abuse if people really want to.
I would suggest that if someone suddenly pops up and votes that we haven't seen
in a while, we ask them if they are willing to
On 10/1/2013 7:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
Why wouldn't the act of voting on an issue count as activity?
It would, but only be valid if the person in question has been active at some
point in the last 6 months.
I think I'm seeing a contradiction .
"Your vote doesn't count because you
Hi,
> Why wouldn't the act of voting on an issue count as activity?
It would, but only be valid if the person in question has been active at some
point in the last 6 months.
Unless you have any other suggestions?
Thanks,
Justin
On 10/1/2013 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
I don't think we would need to remove inactive committers or PMC members from
the list, as there's a small chance they may contribute something of use again.
But I do think you need some form of activity in order to have a vote. If
that's some fo
Hi,
I don't think we would need to remove inactive committers or PMC members from
the list, as there's a small chance they may contribute something of use again.
But I do think you need some form of activity in order to have a vote. If
that's some form of activity in the last 6 months seems a v
ting our bylaws/policies until afterward.
-Alex
From: Greg Reddin [gred...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 6:50 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex Bylaws
Hi all,
I hate to muddy the waters here, but I'll add this:
-Alex
From: Nicholas Kwiatkowski [nicho...@spoon.as]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:10 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex Bylaws
Greg,
We have some people that were brought on during the incubation period who
have yet to contribute anything -- or even
Greg,
We have some people that were brought on during the incubation period who
have yet to contribute anything -- or even join the mailing lists. They
were added to the project during incubation because Adobe felt they would
contribute -- or politically they needed to be involved. Do you feel w
My preferences :
> 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)
>
>
C
> 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
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> 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
Hi all,
I hate to muddy the waters here, but I'll add this: When Tiles became
a TLP we had the bylaws clause in our resolution. I don't remember all
the context, but I'm pretty sure the objections came from some board
members at the time (2006). The objections were that the ASF bylaws
are the byla
1. a or b
2. c
3. c
4. d
5. c
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 7:19 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex Bylaws
Hi,
Looks like as part of the graduation process that we didn'
> 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:
For me:
>> 1. Voting procedure for committers
a
>> 2. Voting procedure for PMC members
c
>> 3. Voting procedure for Chair
c
>> 4. Length of term of Chair
c (other): until they resign or until PMC votes with consensus to
replace the Chair
>> 5. Voting procedure on changing bylaws
c
EdB
--
HI,
> 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.
>
How about this (a little long I know but covers all bases I think):
In the last 3 months:
An email to the dev, private or user list,
or a JIRA iss
Hi,
> I think we should. Although I am not sure what the distinction means. Are
> you thinking of restricting voting privileges to non active PMC?
Yes and that's in line with most of the Apache project bylaws (that I've seen).
They say you need to be an active committer or PMC member to vote.
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" wrote:
>
> On 9/30/2013 7:19 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>
On Sep 30, 2013 5:59 PM, "Jeffry Houser" 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.apac
On Sep 30, 2013 4:19 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/byla
Hi,
And it been pointed out to me that coming up with our own bylaws was part of
the board resolution when we first become a TLP. [1]
Oppps, oh well, better late than never :-)
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Graduation+Resolution
Hi,
Guess I answer my own questions
> 1. Voting procedure for committers
a or b, but more towards a.
> 2. Voting procedure for PMC members
b -IMO needs a higher bar than committers.
> 3. Voting procedure for Chair
c or d.
> 4. Length of term of Chair
b or d. Should be shared about, but does a
Hi,
I've put up some (very) draft bylaws, mostly a modified form of other Apache
projects. Please feel free to edit or suggest changes or tell me if you
disagree with anything.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Draft+Bylaws
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
Thanks for your response.
> 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.
Yep. I'm included to go with with "any activity i
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://c
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/Bylaw
34 matches
Mail list logo
