You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com> on 2014/03/19 18:55:29 UTC

Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Hello all,

I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that arose from
the first vote. Here is the link:

http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html

The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of (excellent)
discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there. :)

- Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
- Voting action changes:
  - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
  - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back to
majority approval)
  - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority approval
  - Clarified difference between release plan and product release actions
  - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
  - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally not
defined, with references
- Added release manager role section
- Added release plan section, with content definition based on Mike's list
  - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates

I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for those [1]
that I could defer to.

I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other issues, I
can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.

Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a second
vote by next week.

[1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html

-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.

I removed the "resolving license disputes" bullet from PMC
responsibilities, as Billie suggested.

Last call for any other updates before the vote!


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:

> The list being compulsory makes sense to me, but artificially restricting
> what the PMC or committers can vote on by requiring a meta-vote first is
> not in line with my expectations around Apache projects in general.
>
> The rule, as I'm used to it, is to seek consensus first in all matters and
> then use a vote if needed to clear up ambiguity. A bylaws vote for anything
> we happen to want to vote on seems excessive.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that the list was both compulsory and
> > exhaustive, and if we need to add/remove actions later then we can bring
> up
> > a vote on it.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html?
> > >
> > > I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the
> > > list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up
> > > previously).
> > >
> > > I also published the current staged changes.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and
> > > adding a
> > > > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair"
> > voting
> > > > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring
> > > consensus
> > > > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I
> > set
> > > > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new
> > PMC
> > > > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
> > > >
> > > > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in
> > CMS
> > > > or at the staging URL:
> http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
> > > >
> > > > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> > > > >
> > > > > -Sean
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sean-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the
> > current
> > > > > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found
> > time
> > > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > it yet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed
> earlier
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New
> PMC
> > > > > Member".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do
> > with
> > > > svn.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <
> madrob@cloudera.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I
> do
> > > not
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > vote.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new
> > version?
> > > > > Email
> > > > > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?)
> > > handles
> > > > > > >> > > implementation?
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be
> denied
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > > > > emeritus.
> > > > > > So,
> > > > > > >> > no
> > > > > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is
> > back
> > > > via
> > > > > > >> email
> > > > > > >> > > (the
> > > > > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > > > > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have
> > "reinstatement"
> > > > even
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a
> > > possible
> > > > > > thing,
> > > > > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in
> the
> > > > > initial
> > > > > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so
> I'm
> > > > glad
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for
> > > feedback
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > arose
> > > > > > >> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> > > > omissions,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat
> likely
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> there.
> > > > > > >> > > :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> > > > Christopher.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to
> > the
> > > > > list
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy
> consensus,
> > > > > falling
> > > > > > >> back
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan)
> action,
> > > > > majority
> > > > > > >> > > approval
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and
> > > product
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > >> > > > actions
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > > > > >> intentionally
> > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content
> definition
> > > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > Mike's
> > > > > > >> > > > > list
> > > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans
> are
> > > > > > estimates
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we
> have
> > a
> > > > page
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > those
> > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As
> > > with
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later
> addition.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > second
> > > > > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1]
> > > http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > > > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.

The list being compulsory makes sense to me, but artificially restricting
what the PMC or committers can vote on by requiring a meta-vote first is
not in line with my expectations around Apache projects in general.

The rule, as I'm used to it, is to seek consensus first in all matters and
then use a vote if needed to clear up ambiguity. A bylaws vote for anything
we happen to want to vote on seems excessive.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I was under the impression that the list was both compulsory and
> exhaustive, and if we need to add/remove actions later then we can bring up
> a vote on it.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html?
> >
> > I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the
> > list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up
> > previously).
> >
> > I also published the current staged changes.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and
> > adding a
> > > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair"
> voting
> > > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring
> > consensus
> > > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I
> set
> > > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new
> PMC
> > > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
> > >
> > > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in
> CMS
> > > or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
> > >
> > > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> > > >
> > > > -Sean
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sean-
> > > > >
> > > > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the
> current
> > > > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found
> time
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > it yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> > > > Member".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do
> with
> > > svn.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do
> > not
> > > > > expect
> > > > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff
> to
> > > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > >> > vote.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new
> version?
> > > > Email
> > > > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?)
> > handles
> > > > > >> > > implementation?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> > > > getting
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > > > emeritus.
> > > > > So,
> > > > > >> > no
> > > > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is
> back
> > > via
> > > > > >> email
> > > > > >> > > (the
> > > > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > > > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have
> "reinstatement"
> > > even
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a
> > possible
> > > > > thing,
> > > > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> > > > initial
> > > > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm
> > > glad
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for
> > feedback
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > arose
> > > > > >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> > > omissions,
> > > > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > >> there.
> > > > > >> > > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> > > Christopher.
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to
> the
> > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> > > > falling
> > > > > >> back
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> > > > majority
> > > > > >> > > approval
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and
> > product
> > > > > release
> > > > > >> > > > actions
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > > > >> intentionally
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > Mike's
> > > > > >> > > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > > > > estimates
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have
> a
> > > page
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As
> > with
> > > > > other
> > > > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that
> we
> > > can
> > > > > call
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > second
> > > > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > [1]
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > // Bill Havanki
> > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > // 443.686.9283
> > >
> >
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.

I was under the impression that the list was both compulsory and
exhaustive, and if we need to add/remove actions later then we can bring up
a vote on it.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:

> nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html?
>
> I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the
> list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up
> previously).
>
> I also published the current staged changes.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and
> adding a
> > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
> > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring
> consensus
> > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
> > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
> > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
> >
> > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
> > or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
> >
> > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> > >
> > > -Sean
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sean-
> > > >
> > > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > it yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier
> in
> > > this
> > > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> > > Member".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with
> > svn.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do
> not
> > > > expect
> > > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to
> > the
> > > > first
> > > > >> > vote.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> > > Email
> > > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?)
> handles
> > > > >> > > implementation?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> > > getting
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > > emeritus.
> > > > So,
> > > > >> > no
> > > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back
> > via
> > > > >> email
> > > > >> > > (the
> > > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement"
> > even
> > > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a
> possible
> > > > thing,
> > > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> > > initial
> > > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm
> > glad
> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for
> feedback
> > > > that
> > > > >> > arose
> > > > >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a
> lot
> > of
> > > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> > omissions,
> > > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely
> to
> > be
> > > > >> there.
> > > > >> > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> > Christopher.
> > > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the
> > > list
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> > > falling
> > > > >> back
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> > > majority
> > > > >> > > approval
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and
> product
> > > > release
> > > > >> > > > actions
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > > >> intentionally
> > > > >> > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
> > based
> > > on
> > > > >> > Mike's
> > > > >> > > > > list
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > > > estimates
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a
> > page
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > those
> > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As
> with
> > > > other
> > > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we
> > can
> > > > call
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > second
> > > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > [1]
> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.

nit: can we move it to governance/bylaws.html?

I update the blurb after the voting actions list to make clear that the
list isn't exhaustive (which I think Christopher had brought up previously).

I also published the current staged changes.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and adding a
> missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
> action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring consensus
> approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
> the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
> member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
>
> [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
> or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
>
> I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sean-
> > >
> > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time
> to
> > do
> > > > it yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in
> > this
> > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> > Member".
> > > >>
> > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with
> svn.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not
> > > expect
> > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to
> the
> > > first
> > > >> > vote.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > >> > >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> > Email
> > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > > >> > > implementation?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> > getting
> > > the
> > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > emeritus.
> > > So,
> > > >> > no
> > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back
> via
> > > >> email
> > > >> > > (the
> > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement"
> even
> > > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible
> > > thing,
> > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> > initial
> > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm
> glad
> > > you
> > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback
> > > that
> > > >> > arose
> > > >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot
> of
> > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> omissions,
> > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to
> be
> > > >> there.
> > > >> > > :)
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> Christopher.
> > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the
> > list
> > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> > falling
> > > >> back
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> > majority
> > > >> > > approval
> > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product
> > > release
> > > >> > > > actions
> > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > >> intentionally
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
> based
> > on
> > > >> > Mike's
> > > >> > > > > list
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > > estimates
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a
> page
> > > for
> > > >> > > those
> > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with
> > > other
> > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we
> can
> > > call
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > second
> > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.

The "resolving license disputes" bullet is from the original boilerplate
copied from ZooKeeper, so if it does not apply or make sense to us, +1 to
dropping it.

I like the verbiage about how undefined voting actions should be run. I
wouldn't want a needed vote to be held up because we need to update the
bylaws first.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Billie Rinaldi
<bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I think "the ASF board removes PMC members" is misleading, so I changed it
> to "PMC members can only be removed with approval from the ASF Board".  I
> also added a bullet under PMC about protecting Apache trademarks, and a
> link to the PMC Guide for more detailed information.  Does anyone know what
> "Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project" means?  If
> not, can we remove this bullet?  I'm not sure which responsibility this is
> trying to highlight, so it at least needs clarification.
>
> Otherwise, it seems to be in pretty good shape.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and
> adding a
> > missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
> > action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring
> consensus
> > approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
> > the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
> > member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
> >
> > [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
> > or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
> >
> > I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> > >
> > > -Sean
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sean-
> > > >
> > > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > it yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier
> in
> > > this
> > > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> > > Member".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with
> > svn.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do
> not
> > > > expect
> > > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to
> > the
> > > > first
> > > > >> > vote.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> > > Email
> > > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?)
> handles
> > > > >> > > implementation?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> > > getting
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > > emeritus.
> > > > So,
> > > > >> > no
> > > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back
> > via
> > > > >> email
> > > > >> > > (the
> > > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement"
> > even
> > > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a
> possible
> > > > thing,
> > > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> > > initial
> > > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm
> > glad
> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for
> feedback
> > > > that
> > > > >> > arose
> > > > >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a
> lot
> > of
> > > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> > omissions,
> > > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely
> to
> > be
> > > > >> there.
> > > > >> > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> > Christopher.
> > > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the
> > > list
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> > > falling
> > > > >> back
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> > > majority
> > > > >> > > approval
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and
> product
> > > > release
> > > > >> > > > actions
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > > >> intentionally
> > > > >> > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
> > based
> > > on
> > > > >> > Mike's
> > > > >> > > > > list
> > > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > > > estimates
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a
> > page
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > those
> > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As
> with
> > > > other
> > > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we
> > can
> > > > call
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > second
> > > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > [1]
> http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Billie Rinaldi <bi...@gmail.com>.

I think "the ASF board removes PMC members" is misleading, so I changed it
to "PMC members can only be removed with approval from the ASF Board".  I
also added a bullet under PMC about protecting Apache trademarks, and a
link to the PMC Guide for more detailed information.  Does anyone know what
"Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project" means?  If
not, can we remove this bullet?  I'm not sure which responsibility this is
trying to highlight, so it at least needs clarification.

Otherwise, it seems to be in pretty good shape.


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and adding a
> missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
> action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring consensus
> approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
> the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
> member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.
>
> [Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
> or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]
>
> I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Sean-
> > >
> > > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey+lists@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time
> to
> > do
> > > > it yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in
> > this
> > > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> > Member".
> > > >>
> > > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with
> svn.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not
> > > expect
> > > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to
> the
> > > first
> > > >> > vote.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > > >> > >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> > Email
> > > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > > >> > > implementation?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> > getting
> > > the
> > > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> > emeritus.
> > > So,
> > > >> > no
> > > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back
> via
> > > >> email
> > > >> > > (the
> > > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> > ctubbsii@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement"
> even
> > > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible
> > > thing,
> > > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> > initial
> > > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm
> glad
> > > you
> > > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback
> > > that
> > > >> > arose
> > > >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot
> of
> > > >> > > > (excellent)
> > > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional
> omissions,
> > > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to
> be
> > > >> there.
> > > >> > > :)
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by
> Christopher.
> > > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the
> > list
> > > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> > falling
> > > >> back
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> > majority
> > > >> > > approval
> > > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product
> > > release
> > > >> > > > actions
> > > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > > >> intentionally
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition
> based
> > on
> > > >> > Mike's
> > > >> > > > > list
> > > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > > estimates
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a
> page
> > > for
> > > >> > > those
> > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with
> > > other
> > > >> > > > issues, I
> > > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we
> can
> > > call
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > second
> > > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> // Bill Havanki
> > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > >> // 443.686.9283
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.

I took one more pass through the bylaws. Besides fixing a typo and adding a
missing comma, the only change I made was to add a "New PMC Chair" voting
action. This was already defined in the PMC section as requiring consensus
approval, so I just added a row to the voting action table for it. I set
the minimum vote period to 3 days, matching the new committer and new PMC
member actions. A longer period would also be fine IMO.

[Site publishing isn't working for me, but you can see the changes in CMS
or at the staging URL: http://accumulo.staging.apache.org/bylaws.html]

I'll tentatively plan to call a vote on Thursday. Thanks, everyone!


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:

> Excellent. Thank you Christopher!
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Sean-
> >
> > I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to
> do
> > > it yet.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in
> this
> > >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC
> Member".
> > >>
> > >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.
> > >>
> > >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not
> > expect
> > >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> > >> >
> > >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the
> > first
> > >> > vote.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> > busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version?
> Email
> > >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > >> > > implementation?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >> > > >wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied
> getting
> > the
> > >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle /
> emeritus.
> > So,
> > >> > no
> > >> > > > vote is warranted.
> > >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via
> > >> email
> > >> > > (the
> > >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <
> ctubbsii@apache.org
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible
> > thing,
> > >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the
> initial
> > >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad
> > you
> > >> > > > > included that stuff.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Hello all,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback
> > that
> > >> > arose
> > >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> > >> > > > (excellent)
> > >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be
> > >> there.
> > >> > > :)
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the
> list
> > >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus,
> falling
> > >> back
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > majority approval)
> > >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action,
> majority
> > >> > > approval
> > >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product
> > release
> > >> > > > actions
> > >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> > >> intentionally
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > defined, with references
> > >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based
> on
> > >> > Mike's
> > >> > > > > list
> > >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> > estimates
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page
> > for
> > >> > > those
> > >> > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with
> > other
> > >> > > > issues, I
> > >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can
> > call
> > >> a
> > >> > > > second
> > >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> // Bill Havanki
> > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > >> // 443.686.9283
> > >>
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.

Excellent. Thank you Christopher!

-Sean


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:

> Sean-
>
> I took care of it; used the neutral "their".
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> > combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to do
> > it yet.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in this
> >> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC Member".
> >>
> >> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.
> >>
> >> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not
> expect
> >> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> >> >
> >> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the
> first
> >> > vote.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <
> busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
> >> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> >> > > implementation?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> >> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting
> the
> >> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus.
> So,
> >> > no
> >> > > > vote is warranted.
> >> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via
> >> email
> >> > > (the
> >> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even
> on
> >> the
> >> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible
> thing,
> >> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> >> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad
> you
> >> > > > > included that stuff.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> >> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> >> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hello all,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback
> that
> >> > arose
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> >> > > > (excellent)
> >> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> >> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be
> >> there.
> >> > > :)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> >> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> >> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> >> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling
> >> back
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > majority approval)
> >> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority
> >> > > approval
> >> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product
> release
> >> > > > actions
> >> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> >> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> >> intentionally
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > defined, with references
> >> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> >> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on
> >> > Mike's
> >> > > > > list
> >> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are
> estimates
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page
> for
> >> > > those
> >> > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with
> other
> >> > > > issues, I
> >> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can
> call
> >> a
> >> > > > second
> >> > > > > > vote by next week.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> >> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > // Bill Havanki
> >> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> > > > // 443.686.9283
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> // Bill Havanki
> >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> >> // 443.686.9283
> >>
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.

Sean-

I took care of it; used the neutral "their".

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
> combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to do
> it yet.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
>
>> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in this
>> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC Member".
>>
>> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.
>>
>> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not expect
>> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
>> >
>> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the first
>> > vote.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
>> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
>> > > implementation?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
>> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
>> > > >
>> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
>> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So,
>> > no
>> > > > vote is warranted.
>> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via
>> email
>> > > (the
>> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on
>> the
>> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
>> > > > > but everything else looks good.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
>> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
>> > > > > included that stuff.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
>> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
>> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > Hello all,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that
>> > arose
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
>> > > > (excellent)
>> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
>> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be
>> there.
>> > > :)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
>> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
>> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
>> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling
>> back
>> > > to
>> > > > > > majority approval)
>> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority
>> > > approval
>> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release
>> > > > actions
>> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
>> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
>> intentionally
>> > > not
>> > > > > > defined, with references
>> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
>> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on
>> > Mike's
>> > > > > list
>> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for
>> > > those
>> > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > that I could defer to.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other
>> > > > issues, I
>> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call
>> a
>> > > > second
>> > > > > > vote by next week.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
>> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > // Bill Havanki
>> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> > > > // 443.686.9283
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> // Bill Havanki
>> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> // 443.686.9283
>>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.

I was going rewrite it to use singular they instead of the current
combination of "his/her" and "his or her". But I haven't found time to do
it yet.


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in this
> thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC Member".
>
> I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.
>
> Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not expect
> > we will suffer from too many cooks.
> >
> > For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the first
> > vote.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
> > > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > > implementation?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > > >
> > > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
> > > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So,
> > no
> > > > vote is warranted.
> > > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via
> email
> > > (the
> > > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on
> the
> > > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
> > > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> > > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
> > > > > included that stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that
> > arose
> > > > > from
> > > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> > > > (excellent)
> > > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be
> there.
> > > :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> > > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling
> back
> > > to
> > > > > > majority approval)
> > > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority
> > > approval
> > > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release
> > > > actions
> > > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are
> intentionally
> > > not
> > > > > > defined, with references
> > > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on
> > Mike's
> > > > > list
> > > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for
> > > those
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other
> > > > issues, I
> > > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call
> a
> > > > second
> > > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.

I removed the reinstatement voting actions, as discussed earlier in this
thread. The actions are now purely "New Committer" and "New PMC Member".

I think a diff between the votes is a great idea, easy to do with svn.

Any other feedback or issues with the proposed bylaws?


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not expect
> we will suffer from too many cooks.
>
> For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the first
> vote.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> >wrote:
>
> > How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
> > description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> > implementation?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> > >
> > > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
> > > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So,
> no
> > > vote is warranted.
> > > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via email
> > (the
> > > bylaws even say so right now).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for doing this.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on the
> > > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
> > > > but everything else looks good.
> > > >
> > > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> > > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
> > > > included that stuff.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hello all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that
> arose
> > > > from
> > > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > >
> > > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> > > (excellent)
> > > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there.
> > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> > > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back
> > to
> > > > > majority approval)
> > > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority
> > approval
> > > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release
> > > actions
> > > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally
> > not
> > > > > defined, with references
> > > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on
> Mike's
> > > > list
> > > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
> > > > >
> > > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for
> > those
> > > > [1]
> > > > > that I could defer to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other
> > > issues, I
> > > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a
> > > second
> > > > > vote by next week.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > > // 443.686.9283
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > // Bill Havanki
> > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > // 443.686.9283
> > >
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Mike Drob <ma...@cloudera.com>.

I think at this point, any willing person can make edits. I do not expect
we will suffer from too many cooks.

For the next vote, it would be a good idea to include a diff to the first
vote.


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>wrote:

> How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
> description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
> implementation?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
> >
> > - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
> > commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So, no
> > vote is warranted.
> > - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via email
> (the
> > bylaws even say so right now).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for doing this.
> > >
> > > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on the
> > > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
> > > but everything else looks good.
> > >
> > > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> > > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
> > > included that stuff.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that arose
> > > from
> > > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > > >
> > > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >
> > > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> > (excellent)
> > > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there.
> :)
> > > >
> > > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > > > - Voting action changes:
> > > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> > > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back
> to
> > > > majority approval)
> > > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority
> approval
> > > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release
> > actions
> > > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally
> not
> > > > defined, with references
> > > > - Added release manager role section
> > > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on Mike's
> > > list
> > > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
> > > >
> > > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for
> those
> > > [1]
> > > > that I could defer to.
> > > >
> > > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other
> > issues, I
> > > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a
> > second
> > > > vote by next week.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > // Bill Havanki
> > > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > > // 443.686.9283
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
> >
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.

How are we handling proposed changes? Just post a new version? Email
description and then some coordinating editor (Bill H?) handles
implementation?


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.
>
> - If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
> commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So, no
> vote is warranted.
> - An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via email (the
> bylaws even say so right now).
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for doing this.
> >
> > I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on the
> > list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
> > but everything else looks good.
> >
> > I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> > bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
> > included that stuff.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that arose
> > from
> > > the first vote. Here is the link:
> > >
> > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >
> > > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of
> (excellent)
> > > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there. :)
> > >
> > > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > > - Voting action changes:
> > >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> > >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back to
> > > majority approval)
> > >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority approval
> > >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release
> actions
> > >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> > >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally not
> > > defined, with references
> > > - Added release manager role section
> > > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on Mike's
> > list
> > >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
> > >
> > > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for those
> > [1]
> > > that I could defer to.
> > >
> > > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other
> issues, I
> > > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a
> second
> > > vote by next week.
> > >
> > > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > // Bill Havanki
> > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > > // 443.686.9283
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>.

I think you are right about the reinstatement actions.

- If a committer cannot lose status, she cannot be denied getting the
commit bit back / her password reset after going idle / emeritus. So, no
vote is warranted.
- An emeritus PMC member can simply declare that she is back via email (the
bylaws even say so right now).


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Christopher <ct...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks for doing this.
>
> I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on the
> list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
> but everything else looks good.
>
> I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
> bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
> included that stuff.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that arose
> from
> > the first vote. Here is the link:
> >
> > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >
> > The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of (excellent)
> > discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> > misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there. :)
> >
> > - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> > - Voting action changes:
> >   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
> >   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back to
> > majority approval)
> >   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority approval
> >   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release actions
> >   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
> >   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally not
> > defined, with references
> > - Added release manager role section
> > - Added release plan section, with content definition based on Mike's
> list
> >   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
> >
> > I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for those
> [1]
> > that I could defer to.
> >
> > I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other issues, I
> > can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
> >
> > Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a second
> > vote by next week.
> >
> > [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
> >
> > --
> > // Bill Havanki
> > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> > // 443.686.9283
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

Re: Bylaw edits based on first vote discussion

Posted by Christopher <ct...@apache.org>.

Thanks for doing this.

I'm still not sure it makes sense to have "reinstatement" even on the
list of voting actions, given that removal is not a possible thing,
but everything else looks good.

I'm more comfortable with the release plan being in the initial
bylaws, now that we've discussed what that means, so I'm glad you
included that stuff.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Bill Havanki <bh...@clouderagovt.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have updated our proposed bylaws to account for feedback that arose from
> the first vote. Here is the link:
>
> http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
> The following is a summary of my updates. There was a lot of (excellent)
> discussion, so please do point out unintentional omissions,
> misinterpretations, or errors that are somewhat likely to be there. :)
>
> - Fixed punctuation errors and typos noticed by Christopher.
> - Voting action changes:
>   - Noted that new actions may be added as needed to the list
>   - Changed the release plan action to lazy consensus, falling back to
> majority approval)
>   - Added release plan cancellation (re-plan) action, majority approval
>   - Clarified difference between release plan and product release actions
>   - Defined "codebase" using Mike's definition
>   - Noted that committer and PMC removal actions are intentionally not
> defined, with references
> - Added release manager role section
> - Added release plan section, with content definition based on Mike's list
>   - Noted specifically that dates in release plans are estimates
>
> I punted on laying out release guidelines, as we have a page for those [1]
> that I could defer to.
>
> I also punted on version numbering, just for now. As with other issues, I
> can certainly see that as a worthwhile later addition.
>
> Thank you in advance for reviewing. I'm hopeful that we can call a second
> vote by next week.
>
> [1] http://accumulo.apache.org/governance/releasing.html
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283