You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to marketing@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> on 2014/07/14 18:39:11 UTC
[VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as an
action
Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
the attached patch to our project bylaws.
Please vote:
[ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
[ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
[ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
(binding) and more +1 than -1.
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals
as an action
Posted by ilya musayev <il...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
On 7/14/14, 12:39 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
wrote:
> That's defined in the bylaws as:
>
> 3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
> binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
>
> On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
> > voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
> > talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
> > brought this up earlier, sorry.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> > > the attached patch to our project bylaws.
> > >
> > > Please vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> > > [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> > > [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
> > >
> > > This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> > > (binding) and more +1 than -1.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>
wrote:
> That's defined in the bylaws as:
>
> 3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
> binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
>
> On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
> > voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
> > talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
> > brought this up earlier, sorry.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> > > the attached patch to our project bylaws.
> > >
> > > Please vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> > > [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> > > [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
> > >
> > > This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> > > (binding) and more +1 than -1.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
That's defined in the bylaws as:
3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
> voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
> talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
> brought this up earlier, sorry.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> > the attached patch to our project bylaws.
> >
> > Please vote:
> >
> > [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> > [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> > [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
> >
> > This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> > (binding) and more +1 than -1.
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org>.
That's defined in the bylaws as:
3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3
binding votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
> voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
> talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
> brought this up earlier, sorry.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <chipchilders@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> > the attached patch to our project bylaws.
> >
> > Please vote:
> >
> > [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> > [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> > [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
> >
> > This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> > (binding) and more +1 than -1.
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
brought this up earlier, sorry.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
--
Daan
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as an action
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
@chip, there are couple typos in that patch (requestor, requester, requster…) u might want to double check.
At the end it says that the vote will be on private@ ? should that say press@ ?
Do we need to explain the process of mark approval in the bylaw. Less is good, so maybe we should just put the actual process in the trademark guidelines and keep the bylaw as short and sweet as possible ?
with that said,
+1
-sebastien
On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
> <bylaws.patch>
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
Re: [VOTE] Project Bylaw change - Adding Trademark Usage Approvals as
an action
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 with a question. what does 'lazy' signify in 'lazy 2/3 majority of
voting pmc members'? It would seem to me that it has no meaning when
talking about a 2/3 majority of voting members. I guess I should have
brought this up earlier, sorry.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
> Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm calling a vote for
> the attached patch to our project bylaws.
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 - accept the proposed patch to the project bylaws
> [ ] +/-0 - no strong opinion
> [ ] -1 - do not accept the proposed patch
>
> This vote requires a lazy majority of active PMC members, at least 3 +1
> (binding) and more +1 than -1.
--
Daan