Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On 11/09/2010 01:26 PM, Paul Querna wrote: I see little need for an additional "Bylaws". I think following the foundation guidelines are all that 90% of projects need for their day to day lives: So what do you all think? Should we shelve the byl

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

I see little need for an additional "Bylaws". I think following the foundation guidelines are all that 90% of projects need for their day to day lives: I think adding an additional bylaws about exceptional things are not needed. Don't build policie

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On 11/09/2010 06:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In general, a release can not be vetoed, but it is a gauge to whether the RM wants to continue or not. See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html Cool, that makes sense. So lets leave this vote as lazy majority, as it is in the prop

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

In general, a release can not be vetoed, but it is a gauge to whether the RM wants to continue or not. See: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:36 PM, John Plevyak wrote: > Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote > against

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

I agree with John. Monday, November 8, 2010, 3:27:55 PM, you wrote: > I have a couple concerns. > Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you > don't > respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want > to have folks who have vanished hol

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

Sounds good to me. john On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > On 11/08/2010 03:41 PM, John Plevyak wrote: > >> >> I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy >> consensus falling back to 2/3 majority? >> > > Sounds too complicated IMO. :) > > We cou

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On 11/08/2010 03:41 PM, John Plevyak wrote: I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy consensus falling back to 2/3 majority? Sounds too complicated IMO. :) We could just do lazy consensus in the bylaws for now, for the release artifacts, and if it ever become

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy consensus falling back to 2/3 majority? john On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > > Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release. >> Seems >> to me a release is a significant e

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: > On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote: > >> I have a couple concerns. >> >> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you >> don't >> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't >>

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote: I have a couple concerns. Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you don't respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus". Actually, re

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote: I have a couple concerns. Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you don't respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus". Agreed, so s

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote against means that there is some critical bug which should be fixed before release. I'd like to think that we err on the side of conservatism as if you need a particular feature you can always resort to svn. john On Mon, N

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate its release ? On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote: > I have a couple concerns. > > Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you > don't > respond within a particular time (1 week)

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

Abstain... damn those spell checkers On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote: > > I have a couple concerns. > > Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you > don't > respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't > want > to have f

Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal

I have a couple concerns. Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you don't respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus". Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to d

[VOTE] Bylaws proposal

Hi all, I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1,