[VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@apache.org>]

This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.

For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:

https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md

This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.

-Taylor


# Apache Storm Project Bylaws

## Roles and Responsibilities

Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
sections:

### Users:

The most important participants in the project are people who use our
software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
their development efforts from the user's perspective.

Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
mailing lists and user support forums.

### Contributors:

Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
on many factors.

### Committers:

The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
storm.

Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.

All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
[Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
provides more details on the requirements for Committers.

A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.

### Project Management Committee(PMC):

The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
include:

* Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
* Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
repository, mailing lists, websites.
* Speaking on behalf of the project.
* Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
* Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
* Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.

Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
"emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
approval of the active PMC members.

The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.

The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
must be ratified by the Apache board.

## Voting

Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
Voting may take four flavors:
	
| Vote | Meaning |
|------|---------|
| +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
| +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
| -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
| -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. |
| 

All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
only the votes of active PMC members are binding.

Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
are still patches before the code is committed.

Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
votes.

## Approvals

These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
require different types of approvals

| Approval Type | Criteria |
|---------------|----------|
| Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
| and no binding vetoes. |
| Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
| assent'). |
| Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
| more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
| Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
| and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
| 

### Vetoes

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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.

## Actions

This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
those who have binding votes over the action.

| Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
| Mailing List |
|---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
|-----------|
| Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
| committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
| who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
| a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
| re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
| Github pull ( with notification sent to
| dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
| Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
| committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
| content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
| modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
| the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
| dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
| Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
| an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
| release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
| members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
| product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
| fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
| also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
| project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
| dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
| Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
| private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
| Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
| private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
| requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
| Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
| private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
| requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
| Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
| private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
| Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
| | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
| question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
| private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
| Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
| | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
| question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
| Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
| Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |

Re: [CANCELED] [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

[Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.INVALID>]

I am perfectly fine with the suggested changes to the bylaws. I used the Hadoop bylaws as a model to start out with which may have not been the best choice.  Really all I care about is that we have a system in place to update the bylaws when/if a question arises about how to handle a situation.  

Beyond that we can figure out how we want to handle things when there is a question.  - Bobby
 

     On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:10 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
   

 I’m canceling this vote due to inactivity and so that we can discuss the concerns Ted raised.

Ted suggested we take a look at the Apache Drill bylaws. The main difference I see is the “Code Change” action:

CODE CHANGE
Storm: 
Approval: One +1 from a Committer other than the one who authored the patch, and no –1s. Code changes to a release require a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a re-vote.
Minimum Length: 2 days

Drill: 
Approval: Consensus approval of active committers, with a minimum of one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1
Minimum Length: 1 day

Beyond that, Drill uses much shorter durations for votes (usually 3 days, max of 6), and lazy consensus for more actions.

Drill also has the same approval model for new committers/pmc members, while we list different approval for Committer/PMC. Since we propose new members for both Committter/PMC, we should probably use the same approval.

In general, Drill uses shorter minimum vote lengths, and slightly more liberal approval requirements. I can see how Drill’s more relaxed approach would allow the project to move more quickly from a development perspective.

The Drill bylaws can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws
The draft Storm bylaws can be found here: https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md

I’d be in favor of relaxing our approval requirements, but I’d like to hear others’ opinions. Hopefully we can come up with a model we can all agree with.

-Taylor

On Nov 7, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Another issue is that releases should require a revote whenever the bits packaging the release change.  The vote is as much on packaging as on the code.  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:44, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Suresh brings up a good point with respect to feature branches (like the security branch).
>> 
>> We should have a provision for working in a feature branch within the Apache repo with fewer restrictions. Without that, we are encouraging developers to collaborate outside of Apache (I.e. p2p github pull requests, etc.).
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas <su...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some comments inline:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as
>>>> the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.
>>>> 
>>>> For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md
>>>> 
>>>> This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes
>>>> from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to
>>>> vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.
>>>> 
>>>> -Taylor
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> # Apache Storm Project Bylaws
>>>> 
>>>> ## Roles and Responsibilities
>>>> 
>>>> Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
>>>> responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
>>>> perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
>>>> sections:
>>>> 
>>>> ### Users:
>>>> 
>>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>>> software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
>>>> their development efforts from the user's perspective.
>>>> 
>>>> Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
>>>> developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
>>>> users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
>>>> mailing lists and user support forums.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Contributors:
>>>> 
>>>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
>>>> documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
>>>> makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
>>>> become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
>>>> on many factors.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Committers:
>>>> 
>>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>>> management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
>>>> Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
>>>> storm.
>>>> 
>>>> Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
>>>> consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
>>>> by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
>>>> project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
>>>> reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
>>>> subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.
>>>> 
>>>> All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
>>>> Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
>>>> [Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
>>>> provides more details on the requirements for Committers.
>>>> 
>>>> A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
>>>> invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
>>>> limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
>>>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Project Management Committee(PMC):
>>>> 
>>>> The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
>>>> oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>>>> include:
>>>> 
>>>> * Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
>>>> In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>>>> * Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
>>>> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>>>> * Speaking on behalf of the project.
>>>> * Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>>>> * Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
>>>> * Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>>>> 
>>>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>>>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>>>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>>>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>>>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>>>> approval of the active PMC members.
>>>> 
>>>> The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
>>>> office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
>>>> Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
>>>> the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
>>>> board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.
>>>> 
>>>> The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
>>>> if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
>>>> new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
>>>> must be ratified by the Apache board.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Voting
>>>> 
>>>> Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
>>>> development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
>>>> necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
>>>> list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>>>> Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
>>>> clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
>>>> Voting may take four flavors:
>>>> 
>>>> | Vote | Meaning |
>>>> |------|---------|
>>>> | +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
>>>> | +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
>>>> | -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
>>>> | -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. |
>>>> |
>>>> 
>>>> All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
>>>> agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
>>>> decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
>>>> votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
>>>> perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
>>>> only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>>>> 
>>>> Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
>>>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>>>> commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
>>>> rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
>>>> are still patches before the code is committed.
>>>> 
>>>> Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
>>>> votes.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Approvals
>>>> 
>>>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>>>> require different types of approvals
>>>> 
>>>> | Approval Type | Criteria |
>>>> |---------------|----------|
>>>> | Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
>>>> | and no binding vetoes. |
>>>> | Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
>>>> | assent'). |
>>>> | Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>>>> | more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
>>>> | Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
>>>> | and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
>>>> |
>>>> 
>>>> ### Vetoes
>>>> 
>>>> 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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Actions
>>>> 
>>>> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
>>>> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
>>>> those who have binding votes over the action.
>>>> 
>>>> | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
>>>> | Mailing List |
>>>> |---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
>>>> |-----------|
>>>> | Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
>>>> | committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
>>>> | who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
>>>> | a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
>>>> | re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
>>>> | Github pull ( with notification sent to
>>> 
>>> binding -1, right?
>>> 
>>> In Apache Hadoop we do not have 2 days wait time. Why is that necessary
>>> given code can be reverted? Quick code may be required for high severity
>>> issues. Also do you want to consider feature branch merge differently? In
>>> case
>>> of hadoop three +1s are required for merging a feature branch. This
>>> helps in a set of contributors working freely on a separate branch and the
>>> code change can be reviewed before the merge.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>>>> | Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
>>>> | committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
>>>> | content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
>>>> | modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
>>>> | the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>>> 
>>> Typo - discression
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> | Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
>>>> | an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
>>>> | release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
>>>> | members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
>>>> | product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
>>>> | fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
>>>> | also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
>>>> | project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
>>>> | Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
>>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
>>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
>>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
>>>> | question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
>>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
>>>> | question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
>>>> | Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> http://hortonworks.com/download/
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
>>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
>>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You.


   

[CANCELED] [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

I’m canceling this vote due to inactivity and so that we can discuss the concerns Ted raised.

Ted suggested we take a look at the Apache Drill bylaws. The main difference I see is the “Code Change” action:

CODE CHANGE
Storm: 
Approval: One +1 from a Committer other than the one who authored the patch, and no –1s. Code changes to a release require a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a re-vote.
Minimum Length: 2 days

Drill: 
Approval: Consensus approval of active committers, with a minimum of one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1
Minimum Length: 1 day

Beyond that, Drill uses much shorter durations for votes (usually 3 days, max of 6), and lazy consensus for more actions.

Drill also has the same approval model for new committers/pmc members, while we list different approval for Committer/PMC. Since we propose new members for both Committter/PMC, we should probably use the same approval.

In general, Drill uses shorter minimum vote lengths, and slightly more liberal approval requirements. I can see how Drill’s more relaxed approach would allow the project to move more quickly from a development perspective.

The Drill bylaws can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws
The draft Storm bylaws can be found here: https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md

I’d be in favor of relaxing our approval requirements, but I’d like to hear others’ opinions. Hopefully we can come up with a model we can all agree with.

-Taylor

On Nov 7, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Another issue is that releases should require a revote whenever the bits packaging the release change.  The vote is as much on packaging as on the code.  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:44, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Suresh brings up a good point with respect to feature branches (like the security branch).
>> 
>> We should have a provision for working in a feature branch within the Apache repo with fewer restrictions. Without that, we are encouraging developers to collaborate outside of Apache (I.e. p2p github pull requests, etc.).
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas <su...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some comments inline:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as
>>>> the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.
>>>> 
>>>> For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md
>>>> 
>>>> This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes
>>>> from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to
>>>> vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.
>>>> 
>>>> -Taylor
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> # Apache Storm Project Bylaws
>>>> 
>>>> ## Roles and Responsibilities
>>>> 
>>>> Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
>>>> responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
>>>> perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
>>>> sections:
>>>> 
>>>> ### Users:
>>>> 
>>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>>> software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
>>>> their development efforts from the user's perspective.
>>>> 
>>>> Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
>>>> developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
>>>> users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
>>>> mailing lists and user support forums.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Contributors:
>>>> 
>>>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
>>>> documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
>>>> makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
>>>> become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
>>>> on many factors.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Committers:
>>>> 
>>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>>> management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
>>>> Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
>>>> storm.
>>>> 
>>>> Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
>>>> consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
>>>> by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
>>>> project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
>>>> reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
>>>> subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.
>>>> 
>>>> All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
>>>> Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
>>>> [Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
>>>> provides more details on the requirements for Committers.
>>>> 
>>>> A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
>>>> invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
>>>> limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
>>>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> ### Project Management Committee(PMC):
>>>> 
>>>> The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
>>>> oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>>>> include:
>>>> 
>>>> * Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
>>>> In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>>>> * Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
>>>> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>>>> * Speaking on behalf of the project.
>>>> * Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>>>> * Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
>>>> * Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>>>> 
>>>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>>>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>>>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>>>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>>>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>>>> approval of the active PMC members.
>>>> 
>>>> The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
>>>> office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
>>>> Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
>>>> the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
>>>> board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.
>>>> 
>>>> The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
>>>> if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
>>>> new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
>>>> must be ratified by the Apache board.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Voting
>>>> 
>>>> Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
>>>> development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
>>>> necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
>>>> list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>>>> Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
>>>> clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
>>>> Voting may take four flavors:
>>>> 
>>>> | Vote | Meaning |
>>>> |------|---------|
>>>> | +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
>>>> | +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
>>>> | -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
>>>> | -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. |
>>>> |
>>>> 
>>>> All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
>>>> agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
>>>> decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
>>>> votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
>>>> perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
>>>> only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>>>> 
>>>> Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
>>>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>>>> commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
>>>> rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
>>>> are still patches before the code is committed.
>>>> 
>>>> Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
>>>> votes.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Approvals
>>>> 
>>>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>>>> require different types of approvals
>>>> 
>>>> | Approval Type | Criteria |
>>>> |---------------|----------|
>>>> | Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
>>>> | and no binding vetoes. |
>>>> | Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
>>>> | assent'). |
>>>> | Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>>>> | more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
>>>> | Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
>>>> | and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
>>>> |
>>>> 
>>>> ### Vetoes
>>>> 
>>>> 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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
>>>> 
>>>> ## Actions
>>>> 
>>>> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
>>>> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
>>>> those who have binding votes over the action.
>>>> 
>>>> | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
>>>> | Mailing List |
>>>> |---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
>>>> |-----------|
>>>> | Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
>>>> | committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
>>>> | who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
>>>> | a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
>>>> | re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
>>>> | Github pull ( with notification sent to
>>> 
>>> binding -1, right?
>>> 
>>> In Apache Hadoop we do not have 2 days wait time. Why is that necessary
>>> given code can be reverted? Quick code may be required for high severity
>>> issues. Also do you want to consider feature branch merge differently? In
>>> case
>>> of hadoop three +1s are required for merging a feature branch. This
>>> helps in a set of contributors working freely on a separate branch and the
>>> code change can be reviewed before the merge.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>>>> | Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
>>>> | committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
>>>> | content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
>>>> | modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
>>>> | the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>>> 
>>> Typo - discression
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> | Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
>>>> | an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
>>>> | release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
>>>> | members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
>>>> | product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
>>>> | fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
>>>> | also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
>>>> | project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
>>>> | Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
>>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
>>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
>>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
>>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
>>>> | question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
>>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
>>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
>>>> | question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>>> | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
>>>> | Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> http://hortonworks.com/download/
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
>>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
>>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
>>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
>>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
>>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
>>> and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Another issue is that releases should require a revote whenever the bits packaging the release change.  The vote is as much on packaging as on the code.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:44, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Suresh brings up a good point with respect to feature branches (like the security branch).
> 
> We should have a provision for working in a feature branch within the Apache repo with fewer restrictions. Without that, we are encouraging developers to collaborate outside of Apache (I.e. p2p github pull requests, etc.).
> 
> -Taylor
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas <su...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Some comments inline:
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as
>>> the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.
>>> 
>>> For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md
>>> 
>>> This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes
>>> from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to
>>> vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.
>>> 
>>> -Taylor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> # Apache Storm Project Bylaws
>>> 
>>> ## Roles and Responsibilities
>>> 
>>> Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
>>> responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
>>> perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
>>> sections:
>>> 
>>> ### Users:
>>> 
>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>> software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
>>> their development efforts from the user's perspective.
>>> 
>>> Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
>>> developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
>>> users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
>>> mailing lists and user support forums.
>>> 
>>> ### Contributors:
>>> 
>>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
>>> documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
>>> makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
>>> become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
>>> on many factors.
>>> 
>>> ### Committers:
>>> 
>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>> management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
>>> Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
>>> storm.
>>> 
>>> Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
>>> consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
>>> by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
>>> project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
>>> reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
>>> subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.
>>> 
>>> All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
>>> Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
>>> [Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
>>> provides more details on the requirements for Committers.
>>> 
>>> A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
>>> invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
>>> limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
>>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>>> 
>>> ### Project Management Committee(PMC):
>>> 
>>> The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
>>> oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>>> include:
>>> 
>>> * Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
>>> In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>>> * Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
>>> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>>> * Speaking on behalf of the project.
>>> * Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>>> * Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
>>> * Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>>> 
>>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>>> approval of the active PMC members.
>>> 
>>> The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
>>> office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
>>> Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
>>> the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
>>> board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.
>>> 
>>> The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
>>> if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
>>> new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
>>> must be ratified by the Apache board.
>>> 
>>> ## Voting
>>> 
>>> Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
>>> development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
>>> necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
>>> list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>>> Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
>>> clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
>>> Voting may take four flavors:
>>> 
>>> | Vote | Meaning |
>>> |------|---------|
>>> | +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
>>> | +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
>>> | -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
>>> | -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. |
>>> |
>>> 
>>> All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
>>> agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
>>> decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
>>> votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
>>> perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
>>> only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>>> 
>>> Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
>>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>>> commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
>>> rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
>>> are still patches before the code is committed.
>>> 
>>> Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
>>> votes.
>>> 
>>> ## Approvals
>>> 
>>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>>> require different types of approvals
>>> 
>>> | Approval Type | Criteria |
>>> |---------------|----------|
>>> | Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
>>> | and no binding vetoes. |
>>> | Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
>>> | assent'). |
>>> | Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>>> | more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
>>> | Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
>>> | and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
>>> |
>>> 
>>> ### Vetoes
>>> 
>>> 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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
>>> 
>>> ## Actions
>>> 
>>> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
>>> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
>>> those who have binding votes over the action.
>>> 
>>> | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
>>> | Mailing List |
>>> |---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
>>> |-----------|
>>> | Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
>>> | committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
>>> | who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
>>> | a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
>>> | re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
>>> | Github pull ( with notification sent to
>> 
>> binding -1, right?
>> 
>> In Apache Hadoop we do not have 2 days wait time. Why is that necessary
>> given code can be reverted? Quick code may be required for high severity
>> issues. Also do you want to consider feature branch merge differently? In
>> case
>> of hadoop three +1s are required for merging a feature branch. This
>> helps in a set of contributors working freely on a separate branch and the
>> code change can be reviewed before the merge.
>> 
>> 
>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>>> | Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
>>> | committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
>>> | content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
>>> | modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
>>> | the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>> 
>> Typo - discression
>> 
>> 
>>> | Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
>>> | an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
>>> | release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
>>> | members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
>>> | product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
>>> | fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
>>> | also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
>>> | project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
>>> | Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
>>> | requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
>>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
>>> | question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
>>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
>>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
>>> | question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>>> | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
>>> | Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://hortonworks.com/download/
>> 
>> -- 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
>> and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

Suresh brings up a good point with respect to feature branches (like the security branch).

We should have a provision for working in a feature branch within the Apache repo with fewer restrictions. Without that, we are encouraging developers to collaborate outside of Apache (I.e. p2p github pull requests, etc.).

-Taylor




> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Suresh Srinivas <su...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Some comments inline:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as
>> the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.
>> 
>> For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:
>> 
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md
>> 
>> This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes
>> from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to
>> vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.
>> 
>> -Taylor
>> 
>> 
>> # Apache Storm Project Bylaws
>> 
>> ## Roles and Responsibilities
>> 
>> Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
>> responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
>> perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
>> sections:
>> 
>> ### Users:
>> 
>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>> software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
>> their development efforts from the user's perspective.
>> 
>> Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
>> developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
>> users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
>> mailing lists and user support forums.
>> 
>> ### Contributors:
>> 
>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
>> documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
>> makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
>> become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
>> on many factors.
>> 
>> ### Committers:
>> 
>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>> management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
>> Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
>> storm.
>> 
>> Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
>> consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
>> by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
>> project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
>> reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
>> subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.
>> 
>> All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
>> Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
>> [Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
>> provides more details on the requirements for Committers.
>> 
>> A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
>> invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
>> limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>> 
>> ### Project Management Committee(PMC):
>> 
>> The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
>> oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>> include:
>> 
>> * Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
>> In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>> * Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
>> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>> * Speaking on behalf of the project.
>> * Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>> * Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
>> * Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>> 
>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>> approval of the active PMC members.
>> 
>> The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
>> office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
>> Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
>> the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
>> board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.
>> 
>> The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
>> if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
>> new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
>> http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
>> must be ratified by the Apache board.
>> 
>> ## Voting
>> 
>> Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
>> development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
>> necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
>> list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>> Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
>> clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
>> Voting may take four flavors:
>> 
>> | Vote | Meaning |
>> |------|---------|
>> | +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
>> | +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
>> | -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
>> | -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. |
>> |
>> 
>> All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
>> agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
>> decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
>> votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
>> perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
>> only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>> 
>> Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>> commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
>> rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
>> are still patches before the code is committed.
>> 
>> Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
>> votes.
>> 
>> ## Approvals
>> 
>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>> require different types of approvals
>> 
>> | Approval Type | Criteria |
>> |---------------|----------|
>> | Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
>> | and no binding vetoes. |
>> | Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
>> | assent'). |
>> | Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>> | more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
>> | Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
>> | and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
>> |
>> 
>> ### Vetoes
>> 
>> 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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
>> 
>> ## Actions
>> 
>> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
>> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
>> those who have binding votes over the action.
>> 
>> | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
>> | Mailing List |
>> |---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
>> |-----------|
>> | Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
>> | committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
>> | who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
>> | a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
>> | re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
>> | Github pull ( with notification sent to
> 
> binding -1, right?
> 
> In Apache Hadoop we do not have 2 days wait time. Why is that necessary
> given code can be reverted? Quick code may be required for high severity
> issues. Also do you want to consider feature branch merge differently? In
> case
> of hadoop three +1s are required for merging a feature branch. This
> helps in a set of contributors working freely on a separate branch and the
> code change can be reviewed before the merge.
> 
> 
>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>> | Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
>> | committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
>> | content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
>> | modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
>> | the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
> 
> Typo - discression
> 
> 
>> | Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
>> | an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
>> | release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
>> | members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
>> | product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
>> | fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
>> | also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
>> | project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
>> | Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
>> | requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
>> | requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
>> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
>> | question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
>> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
>> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
>> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
>> | question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>> | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
>> | Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://hortonworks.com/download/
> 
> -- 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

[Suresh Srinivas <su...@hortonworks.com>]

Some comments inline:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> This is a call to vote on adopting the proposed bylaws (attached below) as
> the bylaws for the Apache Storm project.
>
> For convenience, a rendered version of the markdown can be found here:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/storm/blob/fdbc5ebd081b6b8d6ed4da595ce6f0025343d0ee/BYLAWS.md
>
> This vote will be open for 7 days, and require a 2/3 majority of +1 votes
> from PMC members. As always, all Storm community members are encouraged to
> vote, though only PMC member votes will be considered binding.
>
> -Taylor
>
>
> # Apache Storm Project Bylaws
>
> ## Roles and Responsibilities
>
> Apache projects define a set of roles with associated rights and
> responsibilities. These roles govern what tasks an individual may
> perform within the project. The roles are defined in the following
> sections:
>
> ### Users:
>
> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
> software. The majority of our developers start out as users and guide
> their development efforts from the user's perspective.
>
> Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
> developers in the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well,
> users participate in the Apache community by helping other users on
> mailing lists and user support forums.
>
> ### Contributors:
>
> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
> documentation, or resources to the Storm Project. A contributor that
> makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be invited to
> become a Committer, though the exact timing of such invitations depends
> on many factors.
>
> ### Committers:
>
> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
> management. Committers have access to all project source repositories.
> Committers may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding
> storm.
>
> Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by lazy
> consensus of the active PMC members. A Committer is considered emeritus
> by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the
> project for over six months. An emeritus Committer may request
> reinstatement of commit access from the PMC. Such reinstatement is
> subject to lazy consensus approval of active PMC members.
>
> All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Contributor License
> Agreement (CLA) on file with the Apache Software Foundation. There is a
> [Committers' FAQ](https://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html) which
> provides more details on the requirements for Committers.
>
> A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
> invited to become a member of the PMC. The form of contribution is not
> limited to code. It can also include code review, helping out users on
> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>
> ### Project Management Committee(PMC):
>
> The PMC is responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and
> oversight of the Apache Storm codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
> include:
>
> * Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache Storm project.
> In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
> * Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
> repository, mailing lists, websites.
> * Speaking on behalf of the project.
> * Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
> * Nominating new PMC members and Committers.
> * Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>
> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
> approval of the active PMC members.
>
> The chair of the PMC is appointed by the ASF board. The chair is an
> office holder of the Apache Software Foundation (Vice President, Apache
> Storm) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
> the projects within the scope of the Storm PMC. The chair reports to the
> board quarterly on developments within the Storm project.
>
> The chair of the PMC is rotated annually. When the chair is rotated or
> if the current chair of the PMC resigns, the PMC votes to recommend a
> new chair using Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting. See
> http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting for specifics. The decision
> must be ratified by the Apache board.
>
> ## Voting
>
> Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
> development mailing list (dev@storm.incubator.apache.org). Where
> necessary, PMC voting may take place on the private Storm PMC mailing
> list. Votes are clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
> Votes may contain multiple items for approval and these should be
> clearly separated. Voting is carried out by replying to the vote mail.
> Voting may take four flavors:
>
> | Vote | Meaning |
> |------|---------|
> | +1 | 'Yes,' 'Agree,' or 'the action should be performed.' |
> | +0 | Neutral about the proposed action. |
> | -0 | Mildly negative, but not enough so to want to block it. |
> | -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. |
> |
>
> All participants in the Storm project are encouraged to show their
> agreement with or against a particular action by voting. For technical
> decisions, only the votes of active Committers are binding. Non-binding
> votes are still useful for those with binding votes to understand the
> perception of an action in the wider Storm community. For PMC decisions,
> only the votes of active PMC members are binding.
>
> Voting can also be applied to changes already made to the Storm
> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
> commit message sent when the commit is made. Note that this should be a
> rare occurrence. All efforts should be made to discuss issues when they
> are still patches before the code is committed.
>
> Only active (i.e. non-emeritus) Committers and PMC members have binding
> votes.
>
> ## Approvals
>
> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
> require different types of approvals
>
> | Approval Type | Criteria |
> |---------------|----------|
> | Consensus Approval | Consensus approval requires 3 binding +1 votes
> | and no binding vetoes. |
> | Lazy Consensus | Lazy consensus requires no -1 votes ('silence gives
> | assent'). |
> | Lazy Majority | A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
> | more binding +1 votes than -1 votes. |
> | Lazy 2/3 Majority | Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 votes
> | and twice as many +1 votes as -1 votes. |
> |
>
> ### Vetoes
>
> 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 been vetoed must be reversed in a timely manner.
>
> ## Actions
>
> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within
> the project, the corresponding approval required for that action and
> those who have binding votes over the action.
>
> | Actions | Description | Approval | Binding Votes | Minimum Length |
> | Mailing List |
> |---------|-------------|----------|---------------|----------------|---
> |-----------|
> | Code Change | A change made to a source code of the project and
> | committed by a Committer. | One +1 from a Committer other than the one
> | who authored the patch, and no -1s. Code changes to a release require
> | a re-vote on that release, but non-code changes do not require a
> | re-vote. | Active Committers | 2 days from initial patch |JIRA or
> | Github pull ( with notification sent to
>

binding -1, right?

In Apache Hadoop we do not have 2 days wait time. Why is that necessary
given code can be reverted? Quick code may be required for high severity
issues. Also do you want to consider feature branch merge differently? In
case
of hadoop three +1s are required for merging a feature branch. This
helps in a set of contributors working freely on a separate branch and the
code change can be reviewed before the merge.


> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
> | Non-Code Change | A change made to a repository of the project and
> | committed by a Committer. This includes documentation, website
> | content, etc., but not source code, unless only comments are being
> | modified. | Lazy Consensus | Active Committers | At the discression of
> | the Committer |JIRA or Github pull (with notification sent to
> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org) |
>

Typo - discression


> | Product Release | A vote is required to accept a proposed release as
> | an official release of the project. Any Committer may call for a
> | release vote at any point in time. | Lazy Majority | Active PMC
> | members | 7 days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | Adoption of New Codebase | When the codebase for an existing, released
> | product is to be replaced with an alternative codebase. If such a vote
> | fails to gain approval, the existing code base will continue. This
> | also covers the creation of new sub-projects and submodules within the
> | project. | Lazy 2/3 majority | Active PMC members | 7 days |
> | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | New Committer | When a new Committer is proposed for the project. |
> | Lazy consensus | Active PMC members | 7 days |
> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | New PMC Member | When a Committer is proposed for the PMC. | Consensus
> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | Emeritus PMC Member re-instatement | When an emeritus PMC member
> | requests to be re-instated as an active PMC member. | Consensus
> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | Emeritus Committer re-instatement | When an emeritus Committer
> | requests to be re-instated as an active Committer. | Consensus
> | Approval | Active PMC members | 7 days |
> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | Committer Removal | When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note:
> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the Committer in
> | question if a member of the PMC). | 7 Days |
> | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | PMC Member Removal | When removal of a PMC member is sought. Note:
> | Such actions will also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair.
> | | Consensus Approval | Active PMC members (excluding the member in
> | question). | 7 Days | private@storm.incubator.apache.org |
> | Modifying Bylaws | Modifying this document. | Lazy 2/3 majority |
> | Active PMC members | 7 Days | dev@storm.incubator.apache.org |
>



-- 
http://hortonworks.com/download/

-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, 
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader 
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or 
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately 
and delete it from your system. Thank You.

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Well sorry to have missed the previous discussion thread but I really think that the consensus voting provisions are serious problems.  It would have been much better for me to raise these issues earlier.  My apologies for not doing so. 

-1 for the record as this proposal stands.  

My own oversight is evidence of why full consensus is unworkable. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 17:05, "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just to set some context here, we already had an earlier discussion that is relevant:
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3cCADMkJezY9bwbCMw-ZG2Z97Js8aFyn++483VXLUeQ18AgmW7TZQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
> 
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3cCFD1ACF5.30B19%25evans@yahoo-inc.com%3e
> 
> I'm also open to turning this into a further DISCUSSION thread.
> 
> -Taylor
> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>>> approval of the active PMC members.
>> 
>> There are several places where you use full consensus.  I think that this
>> is very damaging to a project since it can be very, very hard to recover
>> from apathy or other problem.  Lazy consensus would be much better.
>> 
>> I think that the recently adopted Drill bylaws are much better in some of
>> these respects.
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

["P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>]

Just to set some context here, we already had an earlier discussion that is relevant:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3cCADMkJezY9bwbCMw-ZG2Z97Js8aFyn++483VXLUeQ18AgmW7TZQ@mail.gmail.com%3e


http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-dev/201406.mbox/%3cCFD1ACF5.30B19%25evans@yahoo-inc.com%3e

I'm also open to turning this into a further DISCUSSION thread.

-Taylor

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
>> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
>> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
>> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
>> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
>> approval of the active PMC members.
> 
> There are several places where you use full consensus.  I think that this
> is very damaging to a project since it can be very, very hard to recover
> from apathy or other problem.  Lazy consensus would be much better.
> 
> I think that the recently adopted Drill bylaws are much better in some of
> these respects.
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws

Re: [VOTE] Adopt Apache Storm Project Bylaws

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:54 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
> consensus approval of active PMC members. A PMC member is considered
> "emeritus" by their own declaration or by not contributing in any form
> to the project for over six months. An emeritus member may request
> reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is subject to consensus
> approval of the active PMC members.
>

There are several places where you use full consensus.  I think that this
is very damaging to a project since it can be very, very hard to recover
from apathy or other problem.  Lazy consensus would be much better.

I think that the recently adopted Drill bylaws are much better in some of
these respects.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DRILL/Project+Bylaws