You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au> on 2003/05/20 09:00:39 UTC
[PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
PMC members,
I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you wish to
vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they should, that's
OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are required.
Thanks
Conor
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you wish
> to vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they should,
> that's OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are
> required.
>
> Thanks
> Conor
+1
Costin
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 03:29 am, Steve Loughran wrote:
> +1, with couple of questions
>
> -I'm unsure about the point that Active PMC members have the binding vote
> for committers -to date its been open to all committers to have binding
> votes. Is there a reason for the change?
>
The PMC role is to do with the management of the Ant project, while the
committers role is the management of an Ant codebase. Addition of committers
to the project is therefore more within the PMC's responsibility. The
procedure used previously was appropriate under Jakarta's umbrella but the
proposed bylaws bring us into line with standard Apache practice, such as
httpd (see http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)
> -We dont have anything (formally) about the survey process used to cover
> Java1.1 to 1.2 migration. I dont think this is an issue; it was just a
> survey to see what the users would think of something we were to vote on,
> but I think it worked well. Maybe we should say that 'changes of a
> fundamental nature' may need to be bounced past the users as well as
> developers, as now we have two mail lists, the users arent always aware of
> what is going on. Of course if we formalise it, then you have to say 'what
> is so fundamental to merit a survey', which argues against mentioning the
> subject at all
We could add an item for "development standards" as an action. This would over
things like JDK versions, code style guidelines etc. Or we could, as you
suggest, simply leave this to unwritten convention. Most systems of laws,
constitutions, etc rely on such conventions to make things workable.
Conor
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>.
+1, with couple of questions
-I'm unsure about the point that Active PMC members have the binding vote
for committers -to date its been open to all committers to have binding
votes. Is there a reason for the change?
-We dont have anything (formally) about the survey process used to cover
Java1.1 to 1.2 migration. I dont think this is an issue; it was just a
survey to see what the users would think of something we were to vote on,
but I think it worked well. Maybe we should say that 'changes of a
fundamental nature' may need to be bounced past the users as well as
developers, as now we have two mail lists, the users arent always aware of
what is going on. Of course if we formalise it, then you have to say 'what
is so fundamental to merit a survey', which argues against mentioning the
subject at all
-steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Conor MacNeill" <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
To: "Ant Developers List" <de...@ant.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 00:00
Subject: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/do
cs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you wish
to
> vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they should,
that's
> OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are required.
>
> Thanks
> Conor
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
wrote:
> Refer to the recent commit and let me know what you think.
I've already done so 8-)
+1 on the bylaws as they are right now.
> Should the latter be restricted to PMC members?
Proposal of subprojects should not be restricted to PMC members,
adoption should as it affects the project's structure more than its
codebase IMHO.
Stefan
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 07:41 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> Do we need to refer to RfR at all?
No. Actually I don't like RfR either. I've removed it and added a snippet to
cover new sub-project creation here too. Refer to the recent commit and let
me know what you think. Should the latter be restricted to PMC members? I
don't mind either way.
Conor
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
There's one thing I don't like, the "Adoption of New Codebase" part
under "Actions".
As the text is it reads (at least I read it that way) as if "Rules for
Revolutionaries" were the only possible way to adopt a new code base.
Apart from the fact that I personally don't like RfR too much, I think
that there are other possibilities - e.g. starting from scratch in a
new CVS module with all committers on board like Coccon did for
Coccon2.
I'm pretty sure that "RfR is the only way" is not intended here (but
rather "it is one option") and I'm currently unable to come up with
better language, but the currect text somehow disturbs me.
Do we need to refer to RfR at all?
Stefan
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Magesh Umasankar <um...@apache.org>.
+1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Conor MacNeill" <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
To: "Ant Developers List" <de...@ant.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/do
cs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you wish
to
> vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they should,
that's
> OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are required.
>
> Thanks
> Conor
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
RE: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Christoph Wilhelms <Ch...@t-online.de>.
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site
> /anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If
> you wish to
> vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they
> should, that's
> OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are required.
+1! Well done, Conor (as always :-))
Greetings,
Chris
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Erik Hatcher <ja...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
+1
On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 03:00 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> PMC members,
>
> I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/
> anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
>
> Could you please view this and vote indicating your position. If you
> wish to
> vote -1 because you don't believe the bylaws include all they should,
> that's
> OK, of course, but please give me details on what changes are required.
>
> Thanks
> Conor
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
wrote:
> Good point, 2/3 majority is fine by me.
+1
Stefan
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 04:19 pm, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>
> Ok, done.
>
Great - thanks.
> But in proofing the document I realized there was another issue that may be
> a significant typo or may just require a bit more editing.
>
> The responsibilities section says this:
> > The PMC may consider the position of PMC chair annually and if supported
> > by 3/4 Majority may recommend a new chair to the board.
>
> But the 3/4 majority is listed in neither the Approvals section nor in the
> Actions section.
>
> Did you mean for this to be a separate category of majority, or is this a
> typo and you intended a 2/3 majority?
>
Good point, 2/3 majority is fine by me. I'll consider any +1 votes already
cast to remain in force for this change unless notified otherwise.
Conor
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>.
At 09:41 AM 5/21/2003 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>No, fixing typos wouldn't affect the vote, so please go ahead and fix them :-)
Ok, done.
But in proofing the document I realized there was another issue that may be
a significant typo or may just require a bit more editing.
The responsibilities section says this:
> The PMC may consider the position of PMC chair annually and if supported
> by 3/4 Majority may recommend a new chair to the board.
But the 3/4 majority is listed in neither the Approvals section nor in the
Actions section.
Did you mean for this to be a separate category of majority, or is this a
typo and you intended a 2/3 majority?
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Wed, 21 May 2003 05:30 am, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>
> +1 assuming the typos are fixed. I'd go in and fix them, but I'm not sure
> whether that might affect the vote.
>
No, fixing typos wouldn't affect the vote, so please go ahead and fix them :-)
Thanks
Conor
Re: [PMC VOTE] Adoption of Bylaws
Posted by Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>.
At 05:00 PM 5/20/2003 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>PMC members,
>
>I'd like to move towards adoption of the bylaws draft.
>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/ant/proposal/ant-site/anakia/docs/bylaws.html?rev=1.16
+1 assuming the typos are fixed. I'd go in and fix them, but I'm not sure
whether that might affect the vote.
Thanks for all your work doing this, Conor.