Comments on bylaws

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Random thoughts ...

> A Committer is considered emeritus by their own declaration or by
> not contributing in any form to the project for over four months

I vaguely recall six months 8-).  Not that I see any problem in four,
just curious why you've changed it.

I appreciate that you've left out any automatic promotion from
committer to PMC member, even vaguely hinted ones like "typically
happens after six months".

Do we want to state something like "votes are open for at least 72
hours (a week)"?

Which kind of vote would require consensus?  Adoption of a new
codebase as subproject (something the bylaws do not cover yet, not
that I think that's bad).

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Sat, 01 Feb 2003, Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
wrote:

> No real reason - just thought 4 months was sufficient to indicate a
> lack of interest

Possibly.  I can live with either and Magesh seemed to be happy with
four as well.

>> Do we want to state something like "votes are open for at least 72
>> hours (a week)"?
> 
> I think we can say a week. I don't think such a time limit would
> apply to a -1 for a code change,

True - maybe with an exception for vacations 8-)

> Removal of PMC member or committer requires consensus of all other
> PMC members. I think this is OK

Yes, could you add it to your table at the bottom.

> Adoption of codebase should be majority vote,

Fine with me.

> IMHO, - perhaps 2/3 majority,

Again, good idea.

Thanks for putting this together

        Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Random thoughts ...
> 
> 
>>A Committer is considered emeritus by their own declaration or by
>>not contributing in any form to the project for over four months
> 
> 
> I vaguely recall six months 8-).  Not that I see any problem in four,
> just curious why you've changed it.

No real reason - just thought 4 months was sufficient to indicate a lack of 
interest - can be six without issues for me. httpd is six months - I'll 
change it.

> 
> Do we want to state something like "votes are open for at least 72
> hours (a week)"?

I think we can say a week. I don't think such a time limit would apply to a 
-1 for a code change, however (not suggesting that you do, BTW).

> 
> Which kind of vote would require consensus?  Adoption of a new
> codebase as subproject (something the bylaws do not cover yet, not
> that I think that's bad).
> 

Removal of PMC member or committer requires consensus of all other PMC 
members. I think this is OK

Adoption of codebase should be majority vote, IMHO, - perhaps 2/3 majority, 
to ensure project stability. Consensus for that sort of decision is a pretty 
tall order.

Conor



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>Breaking a veto is a
> different thing.  If the veto is valid, it cannot be broken, no matter
> which majority.  If it is not valid, it is void.

Correct. Valid vetos cannot be broken or overruled.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>]

Thanks for the feedback - I've done an update with the following changes

1. Increase inactivity period to six months
2. Form of contibution not limited to code
3. Definition of 2/3 majority approval and rationale
4. Definition of codebase adoption action with 2/3 majority approval
5. Addition of removal actions with consensus approval. Also added
    a requirement for the PMC chair to inform the board of such actions
6. Voting timeframes.

Conor

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:

>> I appreciate that you've left out any automatic promotion from
>> committer to PMC member, even vaguely hinted ones like "typically
>> happens after six months".
> 
> I would preffer it qualified as "six months of active
> contributions".

As I said, I'm happy without saying anything about a timeframe at all.

> Contribution = code, review, docs, mailing list

+1

> AFAIK adopting a codebase is a majority decision in jakarta. 

It is, but we could do it our own way 8-)

Later in that thread I agreed to Conor's suggestion to require 2/3
majority for this.

> I personally preffer we define "consensus" as 2/3 - instead of
> unanimity.

No.  I'd rather have both, consensus and 2/3 majority decisions and
make clear which type of decision is used where.

> Removing a PMC member or breaking a veto or changing the charter
> should be done with a 2/3 vote,

Removing a PMC member should be unanimous IMHO.  Breaking a veto is a
different thing.  If the veto is valid, it cannot be broken, no matter
which majority.  If it is not valid, it is void.

> and I would add a requirement on asking for board feedback.

I hope we'll never get into this situation, and I'm sure we'll consult
the board if it will ever come to this.

Stefan

Re: Comments on bylaws

[Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> Random thoughts ...
> 
>> A Committer is considered emeritus by their own declaration or by
>> not contributing in any form to the project for over four months
> 
> I vaguely recall six months 8-).  Not that I see any problem in four,
> just curious why you've changed it.
> 
> I appreciate that you've left out any automatic promotion from
> committer to PMC member, even vaguely hinted ones like "typically
> happens after six months".

I would preffer it qualified as "six months of active contributions". 
( instead of just six months since he becomes committer ). I would
include the time before becomming committer.

Contribution = code, review, docs, mailing list


> Which kind of vote would require consensus?  Adoption of a new
> codebase as subproject (something the bylaws do not cover yet, not
> that I think that's bad).

AFAIK adopting a codebase is a majority decision in jakarta. 

I personally preffer we define "consensus" as 2/3 - instead of unanimity. 
Removing a PMC member or breaking a veto or changing the charter should be
done with a 2/3 vote, and I would add a requirement on asking for board
feedback.

Costin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org