Fwd: [DISCUSS] Proposed project bylaws

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

Whoops - I sent this to private@ and not dev@. Here's my original text and
some of the replies:

So we're getting fairly close to graduation (we're in the "ready to
graduate" category in the latest Incubator board report!), and we've got a
few things we need to deal with before we actually *do* graduate. One of
them is nailing down project bylaws for voting/approval/releasing/adding
committers/etc. I've got a first draft, based directly on CloudStack's
bylaws (which I quite like) up at https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Bylaws.
CloudStack's, fwiw, is at http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html.

If you all could read these over and comment/suggest changes/etc, that'd be
good!

A.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed project bylaws
To: private@jclouds.incubator.apache.org


I agree with that, but I don't expect someone to provide a perfect
explanation, or even a halfway decent one at first.  The bylaw sounds
pretty strict on providing the complete and unfettered rationale
immediately.


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I understand, but all I'm saying is that if you've got the wherewithal to
> reply with -1, you should be able to at least explain your -1 a little. I
> don't see that as an unreasonable burden in the least.
>
> A.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
>
>> That's a good suggestion.  I've been on a few nonprofit boards and had
>> some weird politics ensue as a result of people being on vacation and
>> "voting" occurring.  It can create a very negative environment.  We're
>> volunteers here, not employees.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> > "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." can get a little
>>> tricky
>>> > when people are away or on vacation and have a strong opinion.  It's
>>> best to
>>> > let people be heard, so while I agree it's important to keep the ball
>>> > rolling on all votes, if vetoes are going to be rare, i'd rather give
>>> people
>>> > the option of starting a separate discuss thread shortly after a -1
>>> instead
>>> > of forcing them to have an immediate explanation.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Pulling the andon cord, stopping the entire production line and then
>>> ducking out before anyone can find out why isn't good form IMO.
>>>
>>> I am not so worried about the timeliness - up until a release of the
>>> code occurs, a veto should still be valid, particularly if there is a
>>> good technical reason behind it. So enjoy your vacation - don't worry
>>> about jclouds or the need to toss vetos while on vacation, and when
>>> you get back all of the commit mails and mailing list discussions will
>>> still be there.
>>>
>>> --David
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed project bylaws

[Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>]

So I want to give everyone one more chance to propose any changes before I
bring this up for a vote next Monday - please make sure you've brought up
any issues you may have by then. Thanks!

A.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Whoops - I sent this to private@ and not dev@. Here's my original text
> and some of the replies:
>
> So we're getting fairly close to graduation (we're in the "ready to
> graduate" category in the latest Incubator board report!), and we've got a
> few things we need to deal with before we actually *do* graduate. One of
> them is nailing down project bylaws for voting/approval/releasing/adding
> committers/etc. I've got a first draft, based directly on CloudStack's
> bylaws (which I quite like) up at https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Bylaws.
> CloudStack's, fwiw, is at http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html.
>
> If you all could read these over and comment/suggest changes/etc, that'd
> be good!
>
> A.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed project bylaws
> To: private@jclouds.incubator.apache.org
>
>
> I agree with that, but I don't expect someone to provide a perfect
> explanation, or even a halfway decent one at first.  The bylaw sounds
> pretty strict on providing the complete and unfettered rationale
> immediately.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I understand, but all I'm saying is that if you've got the wherewithal to
>> reply with -1, you should be able to at least explain your -1 a little. I
>> don't see that as an unreasonable burden in the least.
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>wrote:
>>
>>> That's a good suggestion.  I've been on a few nonprofit boards and had
>>> some weird politics ensue as a result of people being on vacation and
>>> "voting" occurring.  It can create a very negative environment.  We're
>>> volunteers here, not employees.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Matt Stephenson <ma...@mattstep.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > "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." can get a little
>>>> tricky
>>>> > when people are away or on vacation and have a strong opinion.  It's
>>>> best to
>>>> > let people be heard, so while I agree it's important to keep the ball
>>>> > rolling on all votes, if vetoes are going to be rare, i'd rather give
>>>> people
>>>> > the option of starting a separate discuss thread shortly after a -1
>>>> instead
>>>> > of forcing them to have an immediate explanation.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Pulling the andon cord, stopping the entire production line and then
>>>> ducking out before anyone can find out why isn't good form IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I am not so worried about the timeliness - up until a release of the
>>>> code occurs, a veto should still be valid, particularly if there is a
>>>> good technical reason behind it. So enjoy your vacation - don't worry
>>>> about jclouds or the need to toss vetos while on vacation, and when
>>>> you get back all of the commit mails and mailing list discussions will
>>>> still be there.
>>>>
>>>> --David
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>