You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@metron.apache.org by James Sirota <js...@apache.org> on 2016/12/16 17:01:19 UTC
[VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
Change 1 - Replace:
-1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of action.
With
-1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of action.
Change 2 - Replace:
A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
With:
A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
Please vote +1, -1, 0
The vote will be open for 72 hours
-------------------�
Thank you,
James Sirota
PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
jsirota AT apache DOT org
[RESULT] [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by James Sirota <js...@apache.org>.
Vote passes with 3 binding +1's (kyle, nick casey) and 1 non-binding +1 (matt)
Will make the modifications
18.12.2016, 11:47, "Kyle Richardson" <ky...@gmail.com>:
> +1 (binding)
>
> -Kyle
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
>> �Oops. My vote is binding. +1
>>
>> �On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Casey Stella <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> �> +1 binding
>> �> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> �>
>> �> > Um, should have stated \u201cnon-binding\u201d, on both recents.
>> �> >
>> �> > On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > +1
>> �> >
>> �> > On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto
>> �only
>> �> > exists
>> �> > for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing
>> �> as
>> �> > a veto.
>> �> >
>> �> > +1
>> �> >
>> �> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <
>> �> jsirota@apache.org>
>> �> > wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text
>> �> > currently says the
>> �> > > following:
>> �> > >
>> �> > > -1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
>> �> > required, this
>> �> > > vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation
>> �> of
>> �> > why the
>> �> > > veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It
>> �> may
>> �> > also be
>> �> > > appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of
>> �> > action.
>> �> > >
>> �> > > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
>> �> > > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing
>> �it?
>> �> > What
>> �> > > changed?
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <
>> �> > jsirota@apache.org>
>> �> > > wrote:
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following
>> �> changes:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Change 1 - Replace:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
>> �is
>> �> > required,
>> �> > > this
>> �> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
>> �> > commits and must
>> �> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
>> �> > appropriate. Vetoes
>> �> > > with
>> �> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
>> �where a
>> �> > majority is
>> �> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
>> �> > may also be
>> �> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
>> �alternative
>> �> > course of
>> �> > > >> action.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> With
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
>> �is
>> �> > required,
>> �> > > this
>> �> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
>> �> > commits and must
>> �> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
>> �> > appropriate. Vetoes
>> �> > > with
>> �> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
>> �where a
>> �> > majority is
>> �> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
>> �> > may also be
>> �> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
>> �alternative
>> �> > course of
>> �> > > >> action.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Change 2 - Replace:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is
>> �> > cast, it must
>> �> > > be
>> �> > > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for
>> �> the
>> �> > veto. The
>> �> > > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by
>> �> > anyone who has a
>> �> > > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement
>> �> > with the
>> �> > > veto -
>> �> > > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a
>> �valid
>> �> > veto, you
>> �> > > must
>> �> > > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto.
>> �> If
>> �> > a veto is
>> �> > > not
>> �> > > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be
>> �> > reversed in a
>> �> > > >> timely manner.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> With:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be
>> �> > overruled. If a
>> �> > > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical
>> �> > explanation
>> �> > > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity
>> �of
>> �> a
>> �> > veto, if
>> �> > > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding
>> �> > vote. This
>> �> > > does
>> �> > > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely
>> �> > that the veto
>> �> > > is
>> �> > > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby
>> �> the
>> �> > person
>> �> > > casting
>> �> > > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
>> �> withdrawn,
>> �> > any action
>> �> > > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely
>> �> > manner.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -------------------
>> �> > > >> Thank you,
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> James Sirota
>> �> > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
>> �> > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > > --
>> �> > > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>> �> > >
>> �> > > -------------------
>> �> > > Thank you,
>> �> > >
>> �> > > James Sirota
>> �> > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
>> �> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
>> �> > >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> > --
>> �> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �>
>>
>> �--
>> �Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
-------------------�
Thank you,
James Sirota
PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
jsirota AT apache DOT org
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Kyle Richardson <ky...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding)
-Kyle
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> Oops. My vote is binding. +1
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Casey Stella <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 binding
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Um, should have stated “non-binding”, on both recents.
> > >
> > > On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto
> only
> > > exists
> > > for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing
> > as
> > > a veto.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <
> > jsirota@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text
> > > currently says the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> > > required, this
> > > > vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation
> > of
> > > why the
> > > > veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It
> > may
> > > also be
> > > > appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of
> > > action.
> > > >
> > > > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > > > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing
> it?
> > > What
> > > > changed?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <
> > > jsirota@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following
> > changes:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Change 1 - Replace:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
> is
> > > required,
> > > > this
> > > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> > > commits and must
> > > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> > > appropriate. Vetoes
> > > > with
> > > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
> where a
> > > majority is
> > > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> > > may also be
> > > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
> alternative
> > > course of
> > > > >> action.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
> is
> > > required,
> > > > this
> > > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> > > commits and must
> > > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> > > appropriate. Vetoes
> > > > with
> > > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
> where a
> > > majority is
> > > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> > > may also be
> > > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
> alternative
> > > course of
> > > > >> action.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Change 2 - Replace:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is
> > > cast, it must
> > > > be
> > > > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for
> > the
> > > veto. The
> > > > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by
> > > anyone who has a
> > > > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement
> > > with the
> > > > veto -
> > > > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a
> valid
> > > veto, you
> > > > must
> > > > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto.
> > If
> > > a veto is
> > > > not
> > > > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be
> > > reversed in a
> > > > >> timely manner.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be
> > > overruled. If a
> > > > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical
> > > explanation
> > > > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity
> of
> > a
> > > veto, if
> > > > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding
> > > vote. This
> > > > does
> > > > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely
> > > that the veto
> > > > is
> > > > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby
> > the
> > > person
> > > > casting
> > > > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
> > withdrawn,
> > > any action
> > > > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely
> > > manner.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -------------------
> > > > >> Thank you,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> James Sirota
> > > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> > > >
> > > > -------------------
> > > > Thank you,
> > > >
> > > > James Sirota
> > > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>.
Oops. My vote is binding. +1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Casey Stella <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 binding
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > Um, should have stated “non-binding”, on both recents.
> >
> > On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> >
> > I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only
> > exists
> > for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing
> as
> > a veto.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <
> jsirota@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text
> > currently says the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> > required, this
> > > vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation
> of
> > why the
> > > veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It
> may
> > also be
> > > appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of
> > action.
> > >
> > > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it?
> > What
> > > changed?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <
> > jsirota@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following
> changes:
> > > >>
> > > >> Change 1 - Replace:
> > > >>
> > > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> > required,
> > > this
> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> > commits and must
> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> > appropriate. Vetoes
> > > with
> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a
> > majority is
> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> > may also be
> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative
> > course of
> > > >> action.
> > > >>
> > > >> With
> > > >>
> > > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> > required,
> > > this
> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> > commits and must
> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> > appropriate. Vetoes
> > > with
> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a
> > majority is
> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> > may also be
> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative
> > course of
> > > >> action.
> > > >>
> > > >> Change 2 - Replace:
> > > >>
> > > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is
> > cast, it must
> > > be
> > > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for
> the
> > veto. The
> > > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by
> > anyone who has a
> > > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement
> > with the
> > > veto -
> > > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid
> > veto, you
> > > must
> > > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto.
> If
> > a veto is
> > > not
> > > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be
> > reversed in a
> > > >> timely manner.
> > > >>
> > > >> With:
> > > >>
> > > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be
> > overruled. If a
> > > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical
> > explanation
> > > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of
> a
> > veto, if
> > > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding
> > vote. This
> > > does
> > > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely
> > that the veto
> > > is
> > > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby
> the
> > person
> > > casting
> > > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
> withdrawn,
> > any action
> > > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely
> > manner.
> > > >>
> > > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> > > >>
> > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> > > >>
> > > >> -------------------
> > > >> Thank you,
> > > >>
> > > >> James Sirota
> > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > James Sirota
> > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Casey Stella <ce...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> Um, should have stated “non-binding”, on both recents.
>
> On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only
> exists
> for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing as
> a veto.
>
> +1
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text
> currently says the
> > following:
> >
> > -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> required, this
> > vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of
> why the
> > veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may
> also be
> > appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of
> action.
> >
> > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it?
> What
> > changed?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <
> jsirota@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
> > >>
> > >> Change 1 - Replace:
> > >>
> > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> required,
> > this
> > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> commits and must
> > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> appropriate. Vetoes
> > with
> > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a
> majority is
> > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> may also be
> > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative
> course of
> > >> action.
> > >>
> > >> With
> > >>
> > >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is
> required,
> > this
> > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
> commits and must
> > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
> appropriate. Vetoes
> > with
> > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a
> majority is
> > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
> may also be
> > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative
> course of
> > >> action.
> > >>
> > >> Change 2 - Replace:
> > >>
> > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is
> cast, it must
> > be
> > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the
> veto. The
> > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by
> anyone who has a
> > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement
> with the
> > veto -
> > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid
> veto, you
> > must
> > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If
> a veto is
> > not
> > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be
> reversed in a
> > >> timely manner.
> > >>
> > >> With:
> > >>
> > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be
> overruled. If a
> > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical
> explanation
> > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a
> veto, if
> > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding
> vote. This
> > does
> > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely
> that the veto
> > is
> > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the
> person
> > casting
> > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn,
> any action
> > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely
> manner.
> > >>
> > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> > >>
> > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> > >>
> > >> -------------------
> > >> Thank you,
> > >>
> > >> James Sirota
> > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
> >
> > -------------------
> > Thank you,
> >
> > James Sirota
> > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com>.
Um, should have stated “non-binding”, on both recents.
On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
+1
On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only exists
for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing as a veto.
+1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text currently says the
> following:
>
> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the
> veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be
> appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
>
> 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What
> changed?
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
> >>
> >> Change 1 - Replace:
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> With
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> Change 2 - Replace:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must
> be
> >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
> >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
> >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the
> veto -
> >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you
> must
> >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is
> not
> >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a
> >> timely manner.
> >>
> >> With:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a
> >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation
> >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if
> >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This
> does
> >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto
> is
> >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person
> casting
> >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action
> >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
> >>
> >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> James Sirota
> >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>
> -------------------
> Thank you,
>
> James Sirota
> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
--
Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com>.
+1
On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only exists
for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing as a veto.
+1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text currently says the
> following:
>
> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the
> veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be
> appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
>
> 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What
> changed?
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
> >>
> >> Change 1 - Replace:
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> With
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> Change 2 - Replace:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must
> be
> >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
> >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
> >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the
> veto -
> >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you
> must
> >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is
> not
> >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a
> >> timely manner.
> >>
> >> With:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a
> >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation
> >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if
> >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This
> does
> >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto
> is
> >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person
> casting
> >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action
> >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
> >>
> >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> James Sirota
> >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>
> -------------------
> Thank you,
>
> James Sirota
> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
--
Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>.
I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto only exists
for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing as a veto.
+1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text currently says the
> following:
>
> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the
> veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be
> appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
>
> 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What
> changed?
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
> >>
> >> Change 1 - Replace:
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> With
> >>
> >> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required,
> this
> >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes
> with
> >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> >> action.
> >>
> >> Change 2 - Replace:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must
> be
> >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
> >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
> >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the
> veto -
> >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you
> must
> >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is
> not
> >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a
> >> timely manner.
> >>
> >> With:
> >>
> >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a
> >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation
> >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if
> >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This
> does
> >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto
> is
> >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person
> casting
> >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action
> >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
> >>
> >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
> >>
> >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> James Sirota
> >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>
> -------------------
> Thank you,
>
> James Sirota
> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
--
Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by James Sirota <js...@apache.org>.
Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text currently says the following:
-1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this vote counts as a veto. All vetoes must contain an explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with no explanation are void. It may also be appropriate for a -1 vote to include an alternative course of action.
16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
> I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What changed?
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> �Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
>>
>> �Change 1 - Replace:
>>
>> �-1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
>> �vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
>> �include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with
>> �no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
>> �required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
>> �appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
>> �action.
>>
>> �With
>>
>> �-1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
>> �vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
>> �include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with
>> �no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
>> �required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
>> �appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
>> �action.
>>
>> �Change 2 - Replace:
>>
>> �A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be
>> �accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
>> �validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
>> �binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto -
>> �merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must
>> �lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
>> �withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a
>> �timely manner.
>>
>> �With:
>>
>> �A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a
>> �veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation
>> �giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if
>> �challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does
>> �not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is
>> �valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting
>> �the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action
>> �that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
>>
>> �Please vote +1, -1, 0
>>
>> �The vote will be open for 72 hours
>>
>> �-------------------
>> �Thank you,
>>
>> �James Sirota
>> �PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
>> �jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
> --
> Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
-------------------�
Thank you,
James Sirota
PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
jsirota AT apache DOT org
Re: [VOTE] Modify Bylaws
Posted by Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>.
I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing it? What changed?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following changes:
>
> Change 1 - Replace:
>
> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with
> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> action.
>
> With
>
> -1 – This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code commits and must
> include a technical explanation of why the veto is appropriate. Vetoes with
> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues where a majority is
> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it may also be
> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed alternative course of
> action.
>
> Change 2 - Replace:
>
> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is cast, it must be
> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for the veto. The
> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a
> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement with the veto -
> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must
> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be reversed in a
> timely manner.
>
> With:
>
> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be overruled. If a
> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical explanation
> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity of a veto, if
> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding vote. This does
> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely that the veto is
> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby the person casting
> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not withdrawn, any action
> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely manner.
>
>
> Please vote +1, -1, 0
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours
>
> -------------------
> Thank you,
>
> James Sirota
> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
--
Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>