[DISCUSS] Bylaws, CTR or RTC, and lazy concensus

[Kasper Sørensen <i....@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

For some time we've had this DRAFT bylaws document on the wiki:
https://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/Bylaws

As Noah pointed out in another thread [1], the current bylaws wiki page
raises a few concerns. And the question of Commit-The-Review (CTR) or
Review-Then-Commit (RTC) is once again opened.

I call for a discussion on what people's preferences are in terms of the
things we want to have in our bylaws. The current wiki page is a very close
adaptation of the Kafka project's bylaws, and maybe that was a wrong move,
seeing that it didn't leave much room for us to come up with something from
our own standpoints.

My personal feelings on bylaws: I am thinking maybe we can cut down on the
number of things we want to regulate, to make our own life easier. I think
committers could be granted the right to follow a CTR process.
Contributions from newcomers should obviously by reviewed by submitting
patch files or pull requests and having a voting/approval procedure. Lazy
concensus in such situations would maybe require more than 1 vote (2 or 3),
since it's coming from a newcomer.

Hope to get a lot of valuable feedback on this. And if anyone wants to take
the lead on the bylaws I would be grateful, since I am myself a bit of a
newcomer in this area!

Kasper

[1] Called "How to vote on a patch in JIRA".

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws, CTR or RTC, and lazy concensus

[Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>]

Our by-laws, at a very minimum, should include:

- Definitions of roles
- Definitions of voting rules
- Decision categories and the associated voting rules

I am +1 for CTR.

I think that we should trust committers to perform whatever review is
necessary before committing somebody else's changeset/patch. That is,
if a committer spots a patch that they like, they are free to commit
that using CTR.


On 22 November 2013 11:44, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For some time we've had this DRAFT bylaws document on the wiki:
> https://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/Bylaws
>
> As Noah pointed out in another thread [1], the current bylaws wiki page
> raises a few concerns. And the question of Commit-The-Review (CTR) or
> Review-Then-Commit (RTC) is once again opened.
>
> I call for a discussion on what people's preferences are in terms of the
> things we want to have in our bylaws. The current wiki page is a very close
> adaptation of the Kafka project's bylaws, and maybe that was a wrong move,
> seeing that it didn't leave much room for us to come up with something from
> our own standpoints.
>
> My personal feelings on bylaws: I am thinking maybe we can cut down on the
> number of things we want to regulate, to make our own life easier. I think
> committers could be granted the right to follow a CTR process.
> Contributions from newcomers should obviously by reviewed by submitting
> patch files or pull requests and having a voting/approval procedure. Lazy
> concensus in such situations would maybe require more than 1 vote (2 or 3),
> since it's coming from a newcomer.
>
> Hope to get a lot of valuable feedback on this. And if anyone wants to take
> the lead on the bylaws I would be grateful, since I am myself a bit of a
> newcomer in this area!
>
> Kasper
>
> [1] Called "How to vote on a patch in JIRA".



-- 
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws, CTR or RTC, and lazy concensus

[Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>]

+1


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I am +1 with CTR especially with smaller community like MetaModel
>
> - Henry
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Kasper Sørensen
> <i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For some time we've had this DRAFT bylaws document on the wiki:
> > https://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/Bylaws
> >
> > As Noah pointed out in another thread [1], the current bylaws wiki page
> > raises a few concerns. And the question of Commit-The-Review (CTR) or
> > Review-Then-Commit (RTC) is once again opened.
> >
> > I call for a discussion on what people's preferences are in terms of the
> > things we want to have in our bylaws. The current wiki page is a very
> close
> > adaptation of the Kafka project's bylaws, and maybe that was a wrong
> move,
> > seeing that it didn't leave much room for us to come up with something
> from
> > our own standpoints.
> >
> > My personal feelings on bylaws: I am thinking maybe we can cut down on
> the
> > number of things we want to regulate, to make our own life easier. I
> think
> > committers could be granted the right to follow a CTR process.
> > Contributions from newcomers should obviously by reviewed by submitting
> > patch files or pull requests and having a voting/approval procedure. Lazy
> > concensus in such situations would maybe require more than 1 vote (2 or
> 3),
> > since it's coming from a newcomer.
> >
> > Hope to get a lot of valuable feedback on this. And if anyone wants to
> take
> > the lead on the bylaws I would be grateful, since I am myself a bit of a
> > newcomer in this area!
> >
> > Kasper
> >
> > [1] Called "How to vote on a patch in JIRA".
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws, CTR or RTC, and lazy concensus

[Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>]

I am +1 with CTR especially with smaller community like MetaModel

- Henry

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:44 AM, Kasper Sørensen
<i....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For some time we've had this DRAFT bylaws document on the wiki:
> https://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/Bylaws
>
> As Noah pointed out in another thread [1], the current bylaws wiki page
> raises a few concerns. And the question of Commit-The-Review (CTR) or
> Review-Then-Commit (RTC) is once again opened.
>
> I call for a discussion on what people's preferences are in terms of the
> things we want to have in our bylaws. The current wiki page is a very close
> adaptation of the Kafka project's bylaws, and maybe that was a wrong move,
> seeing that it didn't leave much room for us to come up with something from
> our own standpoints.
>
> My personal feelings on bylaws: I am thinking maybe we can cut down on the
> number of things we want to regulate, to make our own life easier. I think
> committers could be granted the right to follow a CTR process.
> Contributions from newcomers should obviously by reviewed by submitting
> patch files or pull requests and having a voting/approval procedure. Lazy
> concensus in such situations would maybe require more than 1 vote (2 or 3),
> since it's coming from a newcomer.
>
> Hope to get a lot of valuable feedback on this. And if anyone wants to take
> the lead on the bylaws I would be grateful, since I am myself a bit of a
> newcomer in this area!
>
> Kasper
>
> [1] Called "How to vote on a patch in JIRA".