You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> on 2012/12/13 03:30:45 UTC
[DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Hi all,
I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
More specifically, I would like to see us discuss and agree on the
contents of the bylaws prior to graduating (hence why I'm bringing it
up now). If others don't agree that this is the time or place, or
that they are not needed, then please say so!
For the draft below, I started with the Hadoop project's version
(found here: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html ), and then took a
stab at editing the contents a bit to match some of the conventions
that we have been using as a community already.
In the draft, I'm assuming that the CloudStack trademark will be
transfered at or before the time of graduation from the incubator, and
therefore retained the statements about ASF owning the trademark
(which is not yet true AFAIK).
I've also retained the references to the PMC, instead of what is
currently the PPMC. For the purpose of this discussion, consider PMC
to be equal to the PPMC today (with the obvious qualification that we
are under the Incubator PMC today).
Section 2.1.4 talks about the PMC being responsible to the board, but
that will only be the case after we graduate.
Please take a look, and let's start the process of figuring out what's
good / bad / otherwise about the draft. All opinions are welcome!
-chip
*****************************************************
Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
*****************************************************
1. Introduction
1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache
CloudStack project operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities
of the project, who may vote, how voting works, how conflicts are
resolved, etc.
1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
foundation holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright
on Apache code including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The
foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
foundation.
1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
2. 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:
2.1. Users
The most important participants in the project are people who use our
software. 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.
2.2. Contributors
Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
2.3. Committers
The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
management. Committers have access to all project source control
repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
a majority 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 of active PMC members.
2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on
the requirements for Committers at Apache.
2.3.3. 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.
2.4. Project Management Committee
The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight
of the Apache CloudStack codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
include:
- Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
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
2.4.1. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be
approved by a lazy consensus 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
lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
CloudStack project.
2.4.3. 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.
3. Decision Making
Within the CloudStack project, different types of decisions require
different forms of approval. For example, the previous section
describes several decisions which require "lazy consensus" approval.
This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals,
and which types of decision require which type of approval.
3.1. Voting
3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the
primary project development mailing list
(cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org). Where necessary, PMC voting may
take place on the private CloudStack 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
+1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in
"making it happen"
+0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under
consideration to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to
help.
-0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action
going ahead.
-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.
3.1.2. All participants in the CloudStack 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
CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of PMC members
are binding.
3.1.3. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
commit message sent when the commit is made.
3.2. Approvals
These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
require different types of approvals
Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
binding vetoes.
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.
3.3. Vetoes
3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
3.3.2. 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.
3.3.3. 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.
3.4. 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.
3.4.1. Technical Decisions
Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
consensus gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack
community will assume that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be
vetoed by any Committer with a valid reason.
3.4.2. Release Plan
Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also
nominates a Release Manager.
Lazy majority of active committers
3.4.3. Product Release
When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
required to accept the release as an official release of the project.
Lazy Majority of active PMC members
3.4.4. 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 within the project
Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
3.4.5. New Committer
When a new committer is proposed for the project
Lazy consensus of active PMC members
3.4.6. New PMC Member
When a committer is proposed for the PMC
Lazy consensus of active PMC members
3.4.7. Committer Removal
When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will
also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
question if a member of the PMC).
3.4.8. 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.
Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
Modifying this document.
Lazy majority of active PMC members
3.5. Voting Timeframes
Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
active voters time to consider the vote.
*****************************************************
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>> 2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
>> management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
>> chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
>> CloudStack project.
>>
>> 2.4.3. 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.
>>
>
>
> Not a huge fan of the rotation, personally.
> I understand why your upstream has it, but not sure why we would do so.
>
> --David
>
Agreed. I actually missed that section when I was creating our
version. I'll remove the rotation from the draft before opening a
vote.
Does anyone else have other comments?
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
>
> 2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
> management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
> chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
> CloudStack project.
>
> 2.4.3. 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.
>
Not a huge fan of the rotation, personally.
I understand why your upstream has it, but not sure why we would do so.
--David
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
I'm doing another pass at a clean draft (thanks for all the discussion!).
One question came to my mind, while editing. Is the Single
Transferable Vote (STV) process too complex for the PPMC to use for
the chair?
This is the section that I left in from Hadoop's bylaws (I'm removing
the rotation bit, but the question remains about how the vote should
occur):
> 2.4.3. 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.
Thanks!
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yeah, with PMC members it's a kinda-different ball o' wax.
For committers, not so much.
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 2.3. Committers
>>>>>
>>>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>>>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>>>>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>>>>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>>>>> a majority 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 of active PMC members.
>>>>
>>>> Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months
>>>> and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is
>>>> this just a general guideline?
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, it would be a general guideline that the PMC would have to take
>>> action to execute. Does anyone else have on opinion on this?
>>
>> I would remove this... committership should not have some sort
>> of "activity limit" on it, simply due to the ebb-and-flow of
>> available cycles for committers. It's not unusual for committers
>> to all of a sudden get busy (or whatever) and not commit for
>> months at a time.
>>
>
> Thanks for the advice Jim.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I agree. It makes me wonder what
> led other projects to including this sort of thing.
>
> I'd like to leave the concept of emeritus around though, specifically
> in the PMC. This is what can distinguish active vs inactive members,
> which is required for some of the actions to have a passing vote. It
> would be by the member's own selection. To get around the "what if
> he/she gets run over by a bus?" issue, the PMC has the ability to
> remove members and committers from the project.
>
> -chip
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 2.3. Committers
>>>>
>>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>>>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>>>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>>>
>>>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>>>> a majority 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 of active PMC members.
>>>
>>> Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months
>>> and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is
>>> this just a general guideline?
>>>
>>
>> IMO, it would be a general guideline that the PMC would have to take
>> action to execute. Does anyone else have on opinion on this?
>
> I would remove this... committership should not have some sort
> of "activity limit" on it, simply due to the ebb-and-flow of
> available cycles for committers. It's not unusual for committers
> to all of a sudden get busy (or whatever) and not commit for
> months at a time.
>
Thanks for the advice Jim.
The more I think about it, the more I agree. It makes me wonder what
led other projects to including this sort of thing.
I'd like to leave the concept of emeritus around though, specifically
in the PMC. This is what can distinguish active vs inactive members,
which is required for some of the actions to have a passing vote. It
would be by the member's own selection. To get around the "what if
he/she gets run over by a bus?" issue, the PMC has the ability to
remove members and committers from the project.
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
>>> 2.3. Committers
>>>
>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>>
>>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>>> a majority 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 of active PMC members.
>>
>> Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months
>> and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is
>> this just a general guideline?
>>
>
> IMO, it would be a general guideline that the PMC would have to take
> action to execute. Does anyone else have on opinion on this?
I would remove this... committership should not have some sort
of "activity limit" on it, simply due to the ebb-and-flow of
available cycles for committers. It's not unusual for committers
to all of a sudden get busy (or whatever) and not commit for
months at a time.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:30:45PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
>> something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
>> believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
>> 1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
>> under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
>> you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
>> project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
>
> I'd remove "is typical of Apache projects in that it" and simply say
> "CloudStack operates under a set of principles..."
>
> The other way implies that some projects don't operate under the Apache
> Way, which I don't believe to be the case.
>
OK
>> 2.1. Users
>>
>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>> software. Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing
>> feedback to developers in the form of bug reports and feature
>> suggestions.
>
> OK
>
>> As well, users participate in the Apache community by
>> helping other users on mailing lists and user support forums.
>
> I'd argue that users who participate in the community by assisting other
> users in any medium are contributors, not merely users. (Which also is
> reflected below.)
>
> Maybe add something like:
>
> "The majority of contributors start as users, and their experiences as
> users guide their contributions and level of interest in the project. We
> believe that a healthy community begins with keeping the user's
> interests in mind."
>
That's good. Sebastian is suggesting we keep the user role, so
perhaps that sentiment gets added to the user role description.
>> 2.2. Contributors
>>
>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
>
> s/etc./and numerous other activities that help promote and improve the
> Apache CloudStack project and community.
>
OK
>> 2.3. Committers
>>
>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>
>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>> a majority 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 of active PMC members.
>
> Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months
> and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is
> this just a general guideline?
>
IMO, it would be a general guideline that the PMC would have to take
action to execute. Does anyone else have on opinion on this?
>> 2.4.3. 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.
>
> Is a chair eligible for consecutive terms if the PMC wants to re-appoint
> the chair for a second term (and the chair is willing)?
David suggested removing this, and I agree. It was an editing mistake
from my initial pass modifying the Hadoop bylaws to work for
CloudStack. Any objections to removing it?
>
>> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
>> active voters time to consider the vote.
>
> Do we wish to put any parameters around "72 hours" (e.g.,
> exclude/include holidays, weekends, etc.? Calling a vote, say, the day
> before U.S. Thanksgiving may preclude reasonable participation. Yes,
> that's a corner case, but I wanted to bring it up...)
>
"at least" seems to be enough for most projects to understand the
importance of giving people enough time to voice their opinions. I'm
hesitant to include specific exceptions, and would rather leave it up
to the person that calls a vote to act in the best interests of the
community. Does this work for others?
> Best,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> http://dissociatedpress.net/
> Twitter: @jzb
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:30:45PM -0500, Chip Childers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
> something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
> believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
> 1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
> under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
> you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
> project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
I'd remove "is typical of Apache projects in that it" and simply say
"CloudStack operates under a set of principles..."
The other way implies that some projects don't operate under the Apache
Way, which I don't believe to be the case.
> 2.1. Users
>
> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
> software. Users contribute to the Apache projects by providing
> feedback to developers in the form of bug reports and feature
> suggestions.
OK
> As well, users participate in the Apache community by
> helping other users on mailing lists and user support forums.
I'd argue that users who participate in the community by assisting other
users in any medium are contributors, not merely users. (Which also is
reflected below.)
Maybe add something like:
"The majority of contributors start as users, and their experiences as
users guide their contributions and level of interest in the project. We
believe that a healthy community begins with keeping the user's
interests in mind."
> 2.2. Contributors
>
> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
s/etc./and numerous other activities that help promote and improve the
Apache CloudStack project and community.
> 2.3. Committers
>
> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
> management. Committers have access to all project source control
> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>
> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
> a majority 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 of active PMC members.
Is this automatic? e.g., if someone doesn't contribute for six months
and comes back in July next year, do they have to request access, or is
this just a general guideline?
> 2.4.3. 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.
Is a chair eligible for consecutive terms if the PMC wants to re-appoint
the chair for a second term (and the chair is willing)?
> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
> active voters time to consider the vote.
Do we wish to put any parameters around "72 hours" (e.g.,
exclude/include holidays, weekends, etc.? Calling a vote, say, the day
before U.S. Thanksgiving may preclude reasonable participation. Yes,
that's a corner case, but I wanted to bring it up...)
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier
http://dissociatedpress.net/
Twitter: @jzb
RE: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
> Thinking about your question, I'm not sure. On one hand, specifics
> are good. On the other hand, it's actually hard to pin down exactly
> what a technical decision is. For example, is an overhaul of the
> website a technical decision? I would argue that it is, since it's an
> "action" being taken by the community.
>
> It's a tough call... Does anyone (Alex?) want to see us describe
> technical decisions better? If so, suggested phrasing?
>
I think the technical decisions part should be defined elsewhere. I just see that as rather ambiguous as I read the bylaws but I think it will change as the community adapts but the bylaws shouldn't change. Maybe we can just add some language to say it's defined elsewhere.
It is always my opinion that even the kitchen sink can be included in cloudstack as long as you wrap it inside a plugin that can be completely disabled. I always feel it's the community's role to ensure that all new code can be disabled. So to me technical decisions is always about did you fit it into a plugin mechanism or introduce a plugin interface to make sure it's properly isolated.
--Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Chip,
>
> Good doc!
>
> Are we expecting to outline what technical decision constitutes?
At this point, I'm open to any edits / comments / suggestions. I
don't have anything outstanding that I personally wanted to be in the
doc.
Thinking about your question, I'm not sure. On one hand, specifics
are good. On the other hand, it's actually hard to pin down exactly
what a technical decision is. For example, is an overhaul of the
website a technical decision? I would argue that it is, since it's an
"action" being taken by the community.
It's a tough call... Does anyone (Alex?) want to see us describe
technical decisions better? If so, suggested phrasing?
-chip
> --Alex
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:38 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>>
>> Latest Draft Below - Comments Please!
>>
>> Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>>
>> 1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache CloudStack
>> project
>> operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the project, who may
>> vote, how voting works, how conflicts are resolved and specifies the rules for
>> specific project actions.
>>
>> 1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
>> foundation
>> holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright on Apache
>> code
>> including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The foundation FAQ explains
>> the
>> operation and background of the foundation.
>>
>> 1.3. CloudStack operates under a set of principles known collectively as the
>> "Apache Way". Those principles are: Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation,
>> respect for fellow developers, and meritocracy, in no specific order.
>>
>> 2. 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:
>>
>> 2.1. Users
>>
>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>> software.
>> Users can contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
>> developers in
>> the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well, users can
>> participate in
>> the Apache community by helping other users on mailing lists and user
>> support
>> forums. Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are
>> considered
>> to be Contributors.
>>
>> 2.2. Contributors
>>
>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
>> documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project. Contributions are
>> not
>> just code, but can be any combination of documentation, testing, user
>> support,
>> code, code reviews, bug reporting, community organizing, project marketing,
>> or
>> numerous other activities that help promote and improve the Apache
>> CloudStack
>> project and community.
>>
>> A Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project
>> may be
>> invited to become a Committer by the PMC. The invitation will be at the
>> discretion of a supporting PMC member.
>>
>> 2.3. Committers
>>
>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>> management.
>> Committers have access to all project source control repositories.
>> Committers
>> may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding the project (or
>> any
>> sub-project).
>>
>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by a lazy
>> consensus of the active PMC members.
>>
>> 2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
>> Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
>> Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on the
>> requirements for Committers at Apache.
>>
>> 2.3.3. A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may
>> be
>> invited by the PMC to become a member of the PMC.
>>
>> 2.4. Project Management Committee
>>
>> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
>> responsible to
>> the board and the ASF for the management and oversight of the Apache
>> CloudStack
>> codebase.
>>
>> 2.4.1. The responsibilities of the PMC include:
>>
>> 2.4.1.1. Fostering, supporting and growing the project's community.
>>
>> 2.4.1.2. Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
>> project. In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>>
>> 2.4.1.3. Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
>> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>>
>> 2.4.1.4. Speaking on behalf of the project.
>>
>> 2.4.1.5. Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>>
>> 2.4.1.6. Nominating new PMC members and committers.
>>
>> 2.4.1.7. Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>>
>> 2.4.2. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by
>> a
>> lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>>
>> 2.4.3. A PMC member is considered "emeritus" by their own declaration. An
>> emeritus member may request reinstatement to the PMC. Such
>> reinstatement is
>> subject to lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>>
>> 2.4.4. "Active PMC members" are all non-emeritus PMC members.
>>
>> 2.4.4. 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
>> CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management
>> of
>> the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The chair reports to the
>> board quarterly on developments within the CloudStack project. The chair
>> must
>> be an active PMC member.
>>
>> 2.4.5. 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.
>>
>> 3. Decision Making
>>
>> This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals, and
>> which
>> types of decision require which type of approval.
>>
>> 3.1. Voting
>>
>> 3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary
>> project
>> development mailing list (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org). Where
>> necessary,
>> PMC voting may take place on the private CloudStack 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.
>>
>> 3.1.2. Voting may take four flavors:
>>
>> 3.1.2.1. +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
>> this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in "making it
>> happen"
>>
>> 3.1.2.2. +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under consideration
>> to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to help.
>>
>> 3.1.2.3. -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
>> the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action going
>> ahead.
>>
>> 3.1.2.4. -1 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
>> vote counts as a veto if binding. 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.
>>
>> 3.1.3. All participants in the CloudStack 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 CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes
>> of
>> PMC members are binding.
>>
>> 3.1.4. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
>> codebase.
>> These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the commit message
>> sent
>> when the commit is made.
>>
>> 3.1.5. Non-binding -1 votes are not considered to be vetos for any decision.
>>
>> 3.2. Approvals
>>
>> There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes
>> actions and types of approvals needed for each action.
>>
>> 3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>> binding -1 votes.
>>
>> 3.2.2. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
>> more
>> binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes.
>>
>> 3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding
>> votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>>
>> 3.3. Vetoes
>>
>> 3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>>
>> 3.3.2. 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.
>>
>> 3.3.3. 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.
>>
>> 3.4. Actions
>>
>> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
>> project, the roles that have the right to start a vote on the action, the
>> corresponding approval required for that action and those who have binding
>> votes over the action.
>>
>> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>>
>> Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
>> consensus
>> gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack community will
>> assume
>> that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>>
>> Technical decisions must be made on a project development mailing list.
>>
>> During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be vetoed
>> by any
>> Committer with a valid reason.
>>
>> If a formal vote is started for a technical decision, the vote will be held as a
>> lazy majority of active committers.
>>
>> Any user, contributor, committer or PMC member can initiate a technical
>> desicion
>> making process.
>>
>> 3.4.2. Release Plan
>>
>> Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also nominates
>> a
>> Release Manager.
>>
>> A lazy majority of active committers is required for approval.
>>
>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
>> on a
>> project development mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.3. Product Release
>>
>> When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is required to
>> accept the release as an official release of the project.
>>
>> Lazy Majority of active PMC members is required for approval.
>>
>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
>> on a
>> project development mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.4. 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 within the project.
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members.
>>
>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
>> on a
>> project development mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.5. New Committer
>>
>> When a new committer is proposed for the project.
>>
>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>>
>> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
>> private
>> mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.6. New PMC Member
>>
>> When a committer is proposed for the PMC.
>>
>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>>
>> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
>> private
>> mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.7. Committer Removal
>>
>> When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will also be
>> referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
>> question if
>> a member of the PMC).
>>
>> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
>> private
>> mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.8. 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.
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>>
>> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
>> private
>> mailing list.
>>
>> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>>
>> Modifying this document.
>>
>> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>>
>> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
>> on a
>> project development mailing list.
>>
>> 3.5. Voting Timeframes
>>
>> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all active
>> voters time to consider the vote.
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Alex Huang <Al...@citrix.com>.
Chip,
Good doc!
Are we expecting to outline what technical decision constitutes?
--Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:38 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>
> Latest Draft Below - Comments Please!
>
> Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> 1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache CloudStack
> project
> operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the project, who may
> vote, how voting works, how conflicts are resolved and specifies the rules for
> specific project actions.
>
> 1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
> foundation
> holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright on Apache
> code
> including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The foundation FAQ explains
> the
> operation and background of the foundation.
>
> 1.3. CloudStack operates under a set of principles known collectively as the
> "Apache Way". Those principles are: Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation,
> respect for fellow developers, and meritocracy, in no specific order.
>
> 2. 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:
>
> 2.1. Users
>
> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
> software.
> Users can contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
> developers in
> the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well, users can
> participate in
> the Apache community by helping other users on mailing lists and user
> support
> forums. Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are
> considered
> to be Contributors.
>
> 2.2. Contributors
>
> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
> documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project. Contributions are
> not
> just code, but can be any combination of documentation, testing, user
> support,
> code, code reviews, bug reporting, community organizing, project marketing,
> or
> numerous other activities that help promote and improve the Apache
> CloudStack
> project and community.
>
> A Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project
> may be
> invited to become a Committer by the PMC. The invitation will be at the
> discretion of a supporting PMC member.
>
> 2.3. Committers
>
> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
> management.
> Committers have access to all project source control repositories.
> Committers
> may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding the project (or
> any
> sub-project).
>
> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by a lazy
> consensus of the active PMC members.
>
> 2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
> Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
> Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on the
> requirements for Committers at Apache.
>
> 2.3.3. A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may
> be
> invited by the PMC to become a member of the PMC.
>
> 2.4. Project Management Committee
>
> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
> responsible to
> the board and the ASF for the management and oversight of the Apache
> CloudStack
> codebase.
>
> 2.4.1. The responsibilities of the PMC include:
>
> 2.4.1.1. Fostering, supporting and growing the project's community.
>
> 2.4.1.2. Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
> project. In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
>
> 2.4.1.3. Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
> repository, mailing lists, websites.
>
> 2.4.1.4. Speaking on behalf of the project.
>
> 2.4.1.5. Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
>
> 2.4.1.6. Nominating new PMC members and committers.
>
> 2.4.1.7. Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
>
> 2.4.2. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by
> a
> lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>
> 2.4.3. A PMC member is considered "emeritus" by their own declaration. An
> emeritus member may request reinstatement to the PMC. Such
> reinstatement is
> subject to lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>
> 2.4.4. "Active PMC members" are all non-emeritus PMC members.
>
> 2.4.4. 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
> CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management
> of
> the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The chair reports to the
> board quarterly on developments within the CloudStack project. The chair
> must
> be an active PMC member.
>
> 2.4.5. 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.
>
> 3. Decision Making
>
> This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals, and
> which
> types of decision require which type of approval.
>
> 3.1. Voting
>
> 3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary
> project
> development mailing list (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org). Where
> necessary,
> PMC voting may take place on the private CloudStack 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.
>
> 3.1.2. Voting may take four flavors:
>
> 3.1.2.1. +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
> this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in "making it
> happen"
>
> 3.1.2.2. +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under consideration
> to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to help.
>
> 3.1.2.3. -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
> the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action going
> ahead.
>
> 3.1.2.4. -1 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
> vote counts as a veto if binding. 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.
>
> 3.1.3. All participants in the CloudStack 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 CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes
> of
> PMC members are binding.
>
> 3.1.4. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
> codebase.
> These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the commit message
> sent
> when the commit is made.
>
> 3.1.5. Non-binding -1 votes are not considered to be vetos for any decision.
>
> 3.2. Approvals
>
> There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes
> actions and types of approvals needed for each action.
>
> 3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> binding -1 votes.
>
> 3.2.2. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and
> more
> binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes.
>
> 3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding
> votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
>
> 3.3. Vetoes
>
> 3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>
> 3.3.2. 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.
>
> 3.3.3. 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.
>
> 3.4. Actions
>
> This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
> project, the roles that have the right to start a vote on the action, the
> corresponding approval required for that action and those who have binding
> votes over the action.
>
> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>
> Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
> consensus
> gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack community will
> assume
> that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>
> Technical decisions must be made on a project development mailing list.
>
> During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be vetoed
> by any
> Committer with a valid reason.
>
> If a formal vote is started for a technical decision, the vote will be held as a
> lazy majority of active committers.
>
> Any user, contributor, committer or PMC member can initiate a technical
> desicion
> making process.
>
> 3.4.2. Release Plan
>
> Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also nominates
> a
> Release Manager.
>
> A lazy majority of active committers is required for approval.
>
> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
> on a
> project development mailing list.
>
> 3.4.3. Product Release
>
> When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is required to
> accept the release as an official release of the project.
>
> Lazy Majority of active PMC members is required for approval.
>
> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
> on a
> project development mailing list.
>
> 3.4.4. 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 within the project.
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members.
>
> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
> on a
> project development mailing list.
>
> 3.4.5. New Committer
>
> When a new committer is proposed for the project.
>
> Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>
> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
> private
> mailing list.
>
> 3.4.6. New PMC Member
>
> When a committer is proposed for the PMC.
>
> Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
>
> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
> private
> mailing list.
>
> 3.4.7. Committer Removal
>
> When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will also be
> referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
> question if
> a member of the PMC).
>
> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
> private
> mailing list.
>
> 3.4.8. 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.
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>
> Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC
> private
> mailing list.
>
> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>
> Modifying this document.
>
> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>
> Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur
> on a
> project development mailing list.
>
> 3.5. Voting Timeframes
>
> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all active
> voters time to consider the vote.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Latest Draft Below - Comments Please!
Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
1. Introduction
1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache CloudStack project
operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities of the project, who may
vote, how voting works, how conflicts are resolved and specifies the rules for
specific project actions.
1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The foundation
holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright on Apache code
including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The foundation FAQ explains the
operation and background of the foundation.
1.3. CloudStack operates under a set of principles known collectively as the
"Apache Way". Those principles are: Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation,
respect for fellow developers, and meritocracy, in no specific order.
2. 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:
2.1. Users
The most important participants in the project are people who use our software.
Users can contribute to the Apache projects by providing feedback to
developers in
the form of bug reports and feature suggestions. As well, users can
participate in
the Apache community by helping other users on mailing lists and user support
forums. Users who participate in the project through any mechanism are
considered
to be Contributors.
2.2. Contributors
Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time, code,
documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project. Contributions are not
just code, but can be any combination of documentation, testing, user support,
code, code reviews, bug reporting, community organizing, project marketing, or
numerous other activities that help promote and improve the Apache CloudStack
project and community.
A Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project may be
invited to become a Committer by the PMC. The invitation will be at the
discretion of a supporting PMC member.
2.3. Committers
The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical management.
Committers have access to all project source control repositories. Committers
may cast binding votes on any technical discussion regarding the project (or any
sub-project).
2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by a lazy
consensus of the active PMC members.
2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on the
requirements for Committers at Apache.
2.3.3. A Committer who makes a sustained contribution to the project may be
invited by the PMC to become a member of the PMC.
2.4. Project Management Committee
The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is responsible to
the board and the ASF for the management and oversight of the Apache CloudStack
codebase.
2.4.1. The responsibilities of the PMC include:
2.4.1.1. Fostering, supporting and growing the project's community.
2.4.1.2. Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
project. In particular all releases must be approved by the PMC.
2.4.1.3. Maintaining the project's shared resources, including the codebase
repository, mailing lists, websites.
2.4.1.4. Speaking on behalf of the project.
2.4.1.5. Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project.
2.4.1.6. Nominating new PMC members and committers.
2.4.1.7. Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project.
2.4.2. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be approved by a
lazy consensus of active PMC members.
2.4.3. A PMC member is considered "emeritus" by their own declaration. An
emeritus member may request reinstatement to the PMC. Such reinstatement is
subject to lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
2.4.4. "Active PMC members" are all non-emeritus PMC members.
2.4.4. 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
CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the management of
the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The chair reports to the
board quarterly on developments within the CloudStack project. The chair must
be an active PMC member.
2.4.5. 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.
3. Decision Making
This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals, and which
types of decision require which type of approval.
3.1. Voting
3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the primary project
development mailing list (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org). Where necessary,
PMC voting may take place on the private CloudStack 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.
3.1.2. Voting may take four flavors:
3.1.2.1. +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in "making it
happen"
3.1.2.2. +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under consideration
to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to help.
3.1.2.3. -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action going
ahead.
3.1.2.4. -1 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus is required, this
vote counts as a veto if binding. 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.
3.1.3. All participants in the CloudStack 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 CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of
PMC members are binding.
3.1.4. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack codebase.
These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the commit message sent
when the commit is made.
3.1.5. Non-binding -1 votes are not considered to be vetos for any decision.
3.2. Approvals
There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes
actions and types of approvals needed for each action.
3.2.1. Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
binding -1 votes.
3.2.2. Lazy Majority - A lazy majority vote requires 3 binding +1 votes and more
binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes.
3.2.3. Lazy 2/3 Majority - Lazy 2/3 majority votes requires at least 3 binding
votes and twice as many binding +1 votes as binding -1 votes.
3.3. Vetoes
3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
3.3.2. 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.
3.3.3. 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.
3.4. Actions
This section describes the various actions which are undertaken within the
project, the roles that have the right to start a vote on the action, the
corresponding approval required for that action and those who have binding
votes over the action.
3.4.1. Technical Decisions
Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using consensus
gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack community will assume
that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
Technical decisions must be made on a project development mailing list.
During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be vetoed by any
Committer with a valid reason.
If a formal vote is started for a technical decision, the vote will be held as a
lazy majority of active committers.
Any user, contributor, committer or PMC member can initiate a technical desicion
making process.
3.4.2. Release Plan
Defines the timetable and work items for a release. The plan also nominates a
Release Manager.
A lazy majority of active committers is required for approval.
Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on a
project development mailing list.
3.4.3. Product Release
When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is required to
accept the release as an official release of the project.
Lazy Majority of active PMC members is required for approval.
Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on a
project development mailing list.
3.4.4. 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 within the project.
Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members.
Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on a
project development mailing list.
3.4.5. New Committer
When a new committer is proposed for the project.
Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC private
mailing list.
3.4.6. New PMC Member
When a committer is proposed for the PMC.
Lazy consensus of active PMC members.
Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC private
mailing list.
3.4.7. Committer Removal
When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will also be
referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in question if
a member of the PMC).
Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC private
mailing list.
3.4.8. 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.
Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
Any active PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on the PMC private
mailing list.
3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
Modifying this document.
Lazy majority of active PMC members
Any active committer or PMC member may call a vote. The vote must occur on a
project development mailing list.
3.5. Voting Timeframes
Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all active
voters time to consider the vote.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>>>>
>>>> Modifying this document.
>>>>
>>>> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do we need to set a timeframe on updating/reviewing bylaws ?
>>>
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting one, but do folks think this is a good idea?
>
> We need to check who is allowed to call a vote on changing the bylaws :)
> Then technically it could happen at anytime.
I've added the roles that can start a vote on each specific action to
the working draft. You'll see it shortly.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chip, some thoughts inline.
>>
>> Don't mind the pickiness.
>
> Thanks for the review. Any no, I don't mind the pickiness!
>
>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:30 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
>>> something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
>>> believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
>>> More specifically, I would like to see us discuss and agree on the
>>> contents of the bylaws prior to graduating (hence why I'm bringing it
>>> up now). If others don't agree that this is the time or place, or
>>> that they are not needed, then please say so!
>>>
>>> For the draft below, I started with the Hadoop project's version
>>> (found here: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html ), and then took a
>>> stab at editing the contents a bit to match some of the conventions
>>> that we have been using as a community already.
>>>
>>> In the draft, I'm assuming that the CloudStack trademark will be
>>> transfered at or before the time of graduation from the incubator, and
>>> therefore retained the statements about ASF owning the trademark
>>> (which is not yet true AFAIK).
>>>
>>> I've also retained the references to the PMC, instead of what is
>>> currently the PPMC. For the purpose of this discussion, consider PMC
>>> to be equal to the PPMC today (with the obvious qualification that we
>>> are under the Incubator PMC today).
>>>
>>> Section 2.1.4 talks about the PMC being responsible to the board, but
>>> that will only be the case after we graduate.
>>>
>>> Please take a look, and let's start the process of figuring out what's
>>> good / bad / otherwise about the draft. All opinions are welcome!
>>>
>>> -chip
>>>
>>>
>>> *****************************************************
>>> Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>>> *****************************************************
>>>
>>> 1. Introduction
>>>
>>> 1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache
>>> CloudStack project operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities
>>> of the project, who may vote, how voting works, how conflicts are
>>> resolved, etc.
>>>
>> I would not use 'etc'. Either list everything it defines or scratch the whole sentence.
>> In previous bylaws I was involved with the less the better to avoid room for interpretation.
>>
>
> Agreed, let's drop that sentence.
>
>>
>>> 1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
>>> foundation holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright
>>> on Apache code including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The
>>> foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>> 1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
>>> under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
>>> you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
>>> project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
>>>
>> Maybe:
>> CloudStack is an Apache project that operates under a set of principles known collectively as the "Apache Way".
>>
>> But that still leaves room for interpretation: What are those principles ?
>
> Well, I think that's honestly the nature of it. However, the list
> that's on the ASF FAQ page is:
>
> "Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation, respect for fellow
> developers, and meritocracy, in no specific order."
>
> Does that work for everyone?
works for me.
>
> I also think we should drop the statement about "If you are new to Apache..."
>
>>> 2. 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:
>>>
>>> 2.1. Users
>>>
>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>> software. 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.
>> Feature requests instead of feature suggestions ?
>
> They are synonymous to me. Why do you think that "request" is better?
I thought that's what JIRA called it. But apparently not. So feature suggestion is fine.
>
>> Is that all users can do ?
>
> Are there other items that you suggest adding?
>
>> What's their responsibilities ?
>
> IMO, I'm not sure a user has any.
That's my point. I am wondering what's the status of a user in the project. Ultimately this leads to the question of whether a user (who only submits tickets and help other folks on the ml can become a committer and ultimately join the PMC) ?
This might be more of a process issue than a bylaw.
If we keep this role in there, maybe we should specify that users can vote and that [VOTE] threads are sent to the -users list as well.
>
>>> 2.2. Contributors
>>>
>>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>>> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project.
>>
>> Devil's advocate hat on: I am contributing time but no code, docs or resources. Am I a contributor ?
>
> Certainly! Using you as an example, when you go to a meet-up to help
> support the project you are contributing time.
>
>>> A
>>> Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project
>>> may be invited to become a Committer,
>> By who ? ( I know you spell it out later, but you may have to write it here)
>
> Let's add: "by the PMC."
>
>>> though the exact timing of such
>>> invitations depends on many factors.
>>
>
> That's the issue... it's entirely based on a PMC member deciding to
> propose the contributor as a committer. I'd like to leave this one as
> is.
You could add something like: "the invitation will be at the discretion of a supporting PMC member"
>
>>
>>> The form of contribution is not
>>> limited to code.
>> But is it mandatory ?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Let's use this sentence instead: "Contributions are not just code,
> but can be any combination of documentation, testing, user support,
> code, code reviews, bug reporting, community organizing, or project
> marketing."
>
> Does that work for you?
yes. Point being that a user who does not submit review requests could become a committer ?
I am not sure if there is precedent in other apache projects.
>
>>> It can also include code review, helping out users on
>>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>>
>> In the Users roles you said that "users contribute". Are users contributors ? If yes, how do users and contributors differ ?
>
> Good point. Are users actually contributors if they actually
> communicate with the project in any way? Should we drop the user
> role?
I don't want to drop it, but its role needs to be clear. Especially accessing to the PMC.
Or we put the user role within the contributor role.
>
>>>
>>> 2.3. Committers
>>>
>>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>>
>>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>>> a majority consensus
>>
>> You only define Lazy consensus and Lazy majority later on.
>
> That should be 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 of active PMC members.
>>>
>>> 2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
>>> Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
>>> Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on
>>> the requirements for Committers at Apache.
>> Is there such as thing as Committer bylaws ? If yes I would say "Committers abide to the Apache bylaws" instead of talking about FAQ.
>
> I don't believe there is.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2.3.3. 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.
>>
>> But is code mandatory ?
>
> No.
>
>>
>>> It can also include code review, helping out
>>> users on the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>>
>> no etc.
>
> Since we already discuss this in the roles section, I actually think
> we should just remove it from here.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2.4. Project Management Committee
>>>
>>> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
>>> responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight
>>> of the Apache CloudStack codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>>> include:
>>>
>>> - Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
>>> 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.
>>
>> Devil's advocate: If I am not in the PMC does this mean I cannot speak "on behalf" ?
>> What does this allow a PMC member to say that John Doe could not say ?
>>
>
> So this came directly from Hadoop, and I didn't put much thought into
> it. However, I think we should think of this as a statement about the
> official member > board > PMC delegation of responsibilities. The
> distinction is that anyone can speak as themselves, noting that they
> are part of the CloudStack community. I think the difference is that
> for a press discussion, PMC members are able to say that they are
> "from the CloudStack project". At least this is the way that I think
> about it…
ok, I am probably reading to much into this. Makes sense.
>
>>> - Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project
>>> - Nominating new PMC members and committers
>>> - Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project
>>
>> Is the list of responsibilities exhaustive ?
>
> Actually, I think it is, with one exception. It actually doesn't call
> out the primary role of a PMC, to foster and support the project's
> community.
Then we should add it.
>
>>>
>>> 2.4.1. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be
>>> approved by a lazy consensus 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
>>> lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>>>
>>> 2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
>>> management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
>>> chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
>>> CloudStack project.
>>>
>>> 2.4.3. 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.
>>>
>>> 3. Decision Making
>>>
>>> Within the CloudStack project, different types of decisions require
>>> different forms of approval.
>>
>> A bit vague.
>>
>
> Drop it?
yes
>
>>> For example, the previous section
>>> describes several decisions which require "lazy consensus" approval.
>>
>> no need for example.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals,
>>> and which types of decision require which type of approval.
>>>
>>> 3.1. Voting
>>>
>>> 3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the
>>> primary project development mailing list
>>> (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org).
>>
>> How about the users ? they don't get to vote ?
>
> AFAIK, all votes for an Apache project have to happen on the dev list
> (or private PMC list).
Ah interesting, then we should wrap the user role into the contributor role.
However I think users should have a say.
>
>>
>>> Where necessary, PMC voting may
>>> take place on the private CloudStack PMC mailing list. Votes are
>>> clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>>
>> who can call a vote ?
>
> I guess it depends on the specific vote that's occurring. Should we
> add this per topic below?
I would say yes. Others have thoughts on this ?
>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
>>> this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in
>>> "making it happen"
>>> +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under
>>> consideration to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to
>>> help.
>>> -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
>>> the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action
>>> going ahead.
>>> -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.
>> I am not a committer. If I vote -1, does this constitute a veto ?
>
> The concept of binding vs non-binding is what decides that question.
> In the case of a contributor voting on a technical topic, the vote is
> non-binding and (IMO) therefore not a valid veto. It's an expression
> of opinion.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3.1.2. All participants in the CloudStack 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
>>> CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of PMC members
>>> are binding.
>>
>> This clarifies 3.1.1 , but is still vague on a non-binding -1
>>
>
> Perhaps add: "Non-binding -1 votes are not considered to be vetos for
> any decision."
Maybe add a small subsection that describes binding vs non-binding.
>
>>>
>>> 3.1.3. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
>>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>>> commit message sent when the commit is made.
>>
>> by a committer
>>
>>>
>>> 3.2. Approvals
>>>
>>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>>> require different types of approvals
>>
>> There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes actions and types of approvals needed.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>>> binding vetoes.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 3.3. Vetoes
>>>
>>> 3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>>>
>>> 3.3.2. 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.
>>>
>>> 3.3.3. 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.
>> who is you ?
>>>
>>> 3.4. 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.
>>>
>>> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>>>
>>> Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
>>> consensus gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack
>>> community will assume that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>>>
>> Since there is no vote, what is the timeline for considering that consensus has been reached.
>>
>>> During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be
>>> vetoed by any Committer with a valid reason.
>>>
>>> 3.4.2. Release Plan
>>>
>>> Defines the timetable and actions for a release.
>>
>> "timetable and work items " to avoid using "actions" in this "Actions" section.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> The plan also
>>> nominates a Release Manager.
>>>
>>> Lazy majority of active committers
>>>
>>> 3.4.3. Product Release
>>>
>>> When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
>>> required to accept the release as an official release of the project.
>>>
>>> Lazy Majority of active PMC members
>>>
>>> 3.4.4. 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 within the project
>>>
>>> Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
>>>
>>> 3.4.5. New Committer
>>>
>>> When a new committer is proposed for the project
>>>
>>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>>>
>>> 3.4.6. New PMC Member
>>>
>>> When a committer is proposed for the PMC
>>>
>>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>>>
>>> 3.4.7. Committer Removal
>>>
>>> When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will
>>> also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>>>
>>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
>>> question if a member of the PMC).
>>>
>>> 3.4.8. 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.
>>>
>>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>>>
>>> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>>>
>>> Modifying this document.
>>>
>>> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>>>
>>
>> Do we need to set a timeframe on updating/reviewing bylaws ?
>>
>
> I wasn't suggesting one, but do folks think this is a good idea?
We need to check who is allowed to call a vote on changing the bylaws :)
Then technically it could happen at anytime.
>
>>> 3.5. Voting Timeframes
>>>
>>> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
>>> active voters time to consider the vote.
>>>
>>> *****************************************************
>>
>> -sebastien
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chip, some thoughts inline.
>
> Don't mind the pickiness.
Thanks for the review. Any no, I don't mind the pickiness!
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:30 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
>> something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
>> believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
>> More specifically, I would like to see us discuss and agree on the
>> contents of the bylaws prior to graduating (hence why I'm bringing it
>> up now). If others don't agree that this is the time or place, or
>> that they are not needed, then please say so!
>>
>> For the draft below, I started with the Hadoop project's version
>> (found here: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html ), and then took a
>> stab at editing the contents a bit to match some of the conventions
>> that we have been using as a community already.
>>
>> In the draft, I'm assuming that the CloudStack trademark will be
>> transfered at or before the time of graduation from the incubator, and
>> therefore retained the statements about ASF owning the trademark
>> (which is not yet true AFAIK).
>>
>> I've also retained the references to the PMC, instead of what is
>> currently the PPMC. For the purpose of this discussion, consider PMC
>> to be equal to the PPMC today (with the obvious qualification that we
>> are under the Incubator PMC today).
>>
>> Section 2.1.4 talks about the PMC being responsible to the board, but
>> that will only be the case after we graduate.
>>
>> Please take a look, and let's start the process of figuring out what's
>> good / bad / otherwise about the draft. All opinions are welcome!
>>
>> -chip
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************
>> Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>> *****************************************************
>>
>> 1. Introduction
>>
>> 1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache
>> CloudStack project operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities
>> of the project, who may vote, how voting works, how conflicts are
>> resolved, etc.
>>
> I would not use 'etc'. Either list everything it defines or scratch the whole sentence.
> In previous bylaws I was involved with the less the better to avoid room for interpretation.
>
Agreed, let's drop that sentence.
>
>> 1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
>> foundation holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright
>> on Apache code including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The
>> foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
>> foundation.
>>
>> 1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
>> under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
>> you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
>> project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
>>
> Maybe:
> CloudStack is an Apache project that operates under a set of principles known collectively as the "Apache Way".
>
> But that still leaves room for interpretation: What are those principles ?
Well, I think that's honestly the nature of it. However, the list
that's on the ASF FAQ page is:
"Transparancy, consensus, non-affiliation, respect for fellow
developers, and meritocracy, in no specific order."
Does that work for everyone?
I also think we should drop the statement about "If you are new to Apache..."
>> 2. 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:
>>
>> 2.1. Users
>>
>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>> software. 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.
> Feature requests instead of feature suggestions ?
They are synonymous to me. Why do you think that "request" is better?
> Is that all users can do ?
Are there other items that you suggest adding?
> What's their responsibilities ?
IMO, I'm not sure a user has any.
>> 2.2. Contributors
>>
>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project.
>
> Devil's advocate hat on: I am contributing time but no code, docs or resources. Am I a contributor ?
Certainly! Using you as an example, when you go to a meet-up to help
support the project you are contributing time.
>> A
>> Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project
>> may be invited to become a Committer,
> By who ? ( I know you spell it out later, but you may have to write it here)
Let's add: "by the PMC."
>> though the exact timing of such
>> invitations depends on many factors.
>
That's the issue... it's entirely based on a PMC member deciding to
propose the contributor as a committer. I'd like to leave this one as
is.
>
>> The form of contribution is not
>> limited to code.
> But is it mandatory ?
>
Nope.
Let's use this sentence instead: "Contributions are not just code,
but can be any combination of documentation, testing, user support,
code, code reviews, bug reporting, community organizing, or project
marketing."
Does that work for you?
>> It can also include code review, helping out users on
>> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>
> In the Users roles you said that "users contribute". Are users contributors ? If yes, how do users and contributors differ ?
Good point. Are users actually contributors if they actually
communicate with the project in any way? Should we drop the user
role?
>>
>> 2.3. Committers
>>
>> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>> management. Committers have access to all project source control
>> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>>
>> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>> a majority consensus
>
> You only define Lazy consensus and Lazy majority later on.
That should be 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 of active PMC members.
>>
>> 2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
>> Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
>> Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on
>> the requirements for Committers at Apache.
> Is there such as thing as Committer bylaws ? If yes I would say "Committers abide to the Apache bylaws" instead of talking about FAQ.
I don't believe there is.
>
>>
>> 2.3.3. 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.
>
> But is code mandatory ?
No.
>
>> It can also include code review, helping out
>> users on the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
>
> no etc.
Since we already discuss this in the roles section, I actually think
we should just remove it from here.
>
>>
>> 2.4. Project Management Committee
>>
>> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
>> responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight
>> of the Apache CloudStack codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>> include:
>>
>> - Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
>> 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.
>
> Devil's advocate: If I am not in the PMC does this mean I cannot speak "on behalf" ?
> What does this allow a PMC member to say that John Doe could not say ?
>
So this came directly from Hadoop, and I didn't put much thought into
it. However, I think we should think of this as a statement about the
official member > board > PMC delegation of responsibilities. The
distinction is that anyone can speak as themselves, noting that they
are part of the CloudStack community. I think the difference is that
for a press discussion, PMC members are able to say that they are
"from the CloudStack project". At least this is the way that I think
about it...
>> - Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project
>> - Nominating new PMC members and committers
>> - Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project
>
> Is the list of responsibilities exhaustive ?
Actually, I think it is, with one exception. It actually doesn't call
out the primary role of a PMC, to foster and support the project's
community.
>>
>> 2.4.1. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be
>> approved by a lazy consensus 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
>> lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>>
>> 2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
>> management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
>> chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
>> CloudStack project.
>>
>> 2.4.3. 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.
>>
>> 3. Decision Making
>>
>> Within the CloudStack project, different types of decisions require
>> different forms of approval.
>
> A bit vague.
>
Drop it?
>> For example, the previous section
>> describes several decisions which require "lazy consensus" approval.
>
> no need for example.
Agreed.
>> This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals,
>> and which types of decision require which type of approval.
>>
>> 3.1. Voting
>>
>> 3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the
>> primary project development mailing list
>> (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org).
>
> How about the users ? they don't get to vote ?
AFAIK, all votes for an Apache project have to happen on the dev list
(or private PMC list).
>
>> Where necessary, PMC voting may
>> take place on the private CloudStack PMC mailing list. Votes are
>> clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
>
> who can call a vote ?
I guess it depends on the specific vote that's occurring. Should we
add this per topic below?
>
>> 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
>>
>> +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
>> this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in
>> "making it happen"
>> +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under
>> consideration to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to
>> help.
>> -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
>> the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action
>> going ahead.
>> -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.
> I am not a committer. If I vote -1, does this constitute a veto ?
The concept of binding vs non-binding is what decides that question.
In the case of a contributor voting on a technical topic, the vote is
non-binding and (IMO) therefore not a valid veto. It's an expression
of opinion.
>
>>
>> 3.1.2. All participants in the CloudStack 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
>> CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of PMC members
>> are binding.
>
> This clarifies 3.1.1 , but is still vague on a non-binding -1
>
Perhaps add: "Non-binding -1 votes are not considered to be vetos for
any decision."
>>
>> 3.1.3. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
>> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>> commit message sent when the commit is made.
>
> by a committer
>
>>
>> 3.2. Approvals
>>
>> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>> require different types of approvals
>
> There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes actions and types of approvals needed.
Agreed.
>
>>
>> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>> binding vetoes.
>> 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.
>>
>> 3.3. Vetoes
>>
>> 3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>>
>> 3.3.2. 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.
>>
>> 3.3.3. 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.
> who is you ?
>>
>> 3.4. 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.
>>
>> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>>
>> Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
>> consensus gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack
>> community will assume that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>>
> Since there is no vote, what is the timeline for considering that consensus has been reached.
>
>> During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be
>> vetoed by any Committer with a valid reason.
>>
>> 3.4.2. Release Plan
>>
>> Defines the timetable and actions for a release.
>
> "timetable and work items " to avoid using "actions" in this "Actions" section.
>
Agreed.
>> The plan also
>> nominates a Release Manager.
>>
>> Lazy majority of active committers
>>
>> 3.4.3. Product Release
>>
>> When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
>> required to accept the release as an official release of the project.
>>
>> Lazy Majority of active PMC members
>>
>> 3.4.4. 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 within the project
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
>>
>> 3.4.5. New Committer
>>
>> When a new committer is proposed for the project
>>
>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>>
>> 3.4.6. New PMC Member
>>
>> When a committer is proposed for the PMC
>>
>> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>>
>> 3.4.7. Committer Removal
>>
>> When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will
>> also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
>> question if a member of the PMC).
>>
>> 3.4.8. 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.
>>
>> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>>
>> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>>
>> Modifying this document.
>>
>> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>>
>
> Do we need to set a timeframe on updating/reviewing bylaws ?
>
I wasn't suggesting one, but do folks think this is a good idea?
>> 3.5. Voting Timeframes
>>
>> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
>> active voters time to consider the vote.
>>
>> *****************************************************
>
> -sebastien
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
Chip, some thoughts inline.
Don't mind the pickiness.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:30 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
> something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
> believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
> More specifically, I would like to see us discuss and agree on the
> contents of the bylaws prior to graduating (hence why I'm bringing it
> up now). If others don't agree that this is the time or place, or
> that they are not needed, then please say so!
>
> For the draft below, I started with the Hadoop project's version
> (found here: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html ), and then took a
> stab at editing the contents a bit to match some of the conventions
> that we have been using as a community already.
>
> In the draft, I'm assuming that the CloudStack trademark will be
> transfered at or before the time of graduation from the incubator, and
> therefore retained the statements about ASF owning the trademark
> (which is not yet true AFAIK).
>
> I've also retained the references to the PMC, instead of what is
> currently the PPMC. For the purpose of this discussion, consider PMC
> to be equal to the PPMC today (with the obvious qualification that we
> are under the Incubator PMC today).
>
> Section 2.1.4 talks about the PMC being responsible to the board, but
> that will only be the case after we graduate.
>
> Please take a look, and let's start the process of figuring out what's
> good / bad / otherwise about the draft. All opinions are welcome!
>
> -chip
>
>
> *****************************************************
> Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
> *****************************************************
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> 1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache
> CloudStack project operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities
> of the project, who may vote, how voting works, how conflicts are
> resolved, etc.
>
I would not use 'etc'. Either list everything it defines or scratch the whole sentence.
In previous bylaws I was involved with the less the better to avoid room for interpretation.
> 1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
> foundation holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright
> on Apache code including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The
> foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
> foundation.
>
> 1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
> under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
> you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
> project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
>
Maybe:
CloudStack is an Apache project that operates under a set of principles known collectively as the "Apache Way".
But that still leaves room for interpretation: What are those principles ?
> 2. 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:
>
> 2.1. Users
>
> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
> software. 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.
Feature requests instead of feature suggestions ?
Is that all users can do ?
What's their responsibilities ?
> 2.2. Contributors
>
> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack Project.
Devil's advocate hat on: I am contributing time but no code, docs or resources. Am I a contributor ?
> A
> Contributor that makes sustained, welcome contributions to the project
> may be invited to become a Committer,
By who ? ( I know you spell it out later, but you may have to write it here)
> though the exact timing of such
> invitations depends on many factors.
Which ones ?
> The form of contribution is not
> limited to code.
But is it mandatory ?
> It can also include code review, helping out users on
> the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
In the Users roles you said that "users contribute". Are users contributors ? If yes, how do users and contributors differ ?
>
> 2.3. Committers
>
> The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
> management. Committers have access to all project source control
> repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
> discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>
> 2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
> a majority consensus
You only define Lazy consensus and Lazy majority later on.
> 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 of active PMC members.
>
> 2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
> Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
> Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on
> the requirements for Committers at Apache.
Is there such as thing as Committer bylaws ? If yes I would say "Committers abide to the Apache bylaws" instead of talking about FAQ.
>
> 2.3.3. 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.
But is code mandatory ?
> It can also include code review, helping out
> users on the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.
no etc.
>
> 2.4. Project Management Committee
>
> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
> responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight
> of the Apache CloudStack codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
> include:
>
> - Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
> 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.
Devil's advocate: If I am not in the PMC does this mean I cannot speak "on behalf" ?
What does this allow a PMC member to say that John Doe could not say ?
> - Resolving license disputes regarding products of the project
> - Nominating new PMC members and committers
> - Maintaining these bylaws and other guidelines of the project
Is the list of responsibilities exhaustive ?
>
> 2.4.1. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be
> approved by a lazy consensus 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
> lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>
> 2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
> management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
> chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
> CloudStack project.
>
> 2.4.3. 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.
>
> 3. Decision Making
>
> Within the CloudStack project, different types of decisions require
> different forms of approval.
A bit vague.
> For example, the previous section
> describes several decisions which require "lazy consensus" approval.
no need for example.
> This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals,
> and which types of decision require which type of approval.
>
> 3.1. Voting
>
> 3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the
> primary project development mailing list
> (cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org).
How about the users ? they don't get to vote ?
> Where necessary, PMC voting may
> take place on the private CloudStack PMC mailing list. Votes are
> clearly indicated by subject line starting with [VOTE].
who can call a 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
>
> +1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
> this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in
> "making it happen"
> +0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under
> consideration to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to
> help.
> -0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
> the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action
> going ahead.
> -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.
I am not a committer. If I vote -1, does this constitute a veto ?
>
> 3.1.2. All participants in the CloudStack 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
> CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of PMC members
> are binding.
This clarifies 3.1.1 , but is still vague on a non-binding -1
>
> 3.1.3. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
> codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
> commit message sent when the commit is made.
by a committer
>
> 3.2. Approvals
>
> These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
> require different types of approvals
There are three types of approvals that can be sought. Section 3.4 describes actions and types of approvals needed.
>
> Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
> binding vetoes.
> 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.
>
> 3.3. Vetoes
>
> 3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>
> 3.3.2. 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.
>
> 3.3.3. 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.
who is you ?
>
> 3.4. 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.
>
> 3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>
> Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
> consensus gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack
> community will assume that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>
Since there is no vote, what is the timeline for considering that consensus has been reached.
> During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be
> vetoed by any Committer with a valid reason.
>
> 3.4.2. Release Plan
>
> Defines the timetable and actions for a release.
"timetable and work items " to avoid using "actions" in this "Actions" section.
> The plan also
> nominates a Release Manager.
>
> Lazy majority of active committers
>
> 3.4.3. Product Release
>
> When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
> required to accept the release as an official release of the project.
>
> Lazy Majority of active PMC members
>
> 3.4.4. 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 within the project
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
>
> 3.4.5. New Committer
>
> When a new committer is proposed for the project
>
> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>
> 3.4.6. New PMC Member
>
> When a committer is proposed for the PMC
>
> Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>
> 3.4.7. Committer Removal
>
> When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will
> also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
> question if a member of the PMC).
>
> 3.4.8. 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.
>
> Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>
> 3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>
> Modifying this document.
>
> Lazy majority of active PMC members
>
Do we need to set a timeframe on updating/reviewing bylaws ?
> 3.5. Voting Timeframes
>
> Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
> active voters time to consider the vote.
>
> *****************************************************
-sebastien
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/12/12 6:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> 2.1. Users
>>>>
>>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>>> software. 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.
>>>
>>> There are users of CloudStack-derived products (e.g., users of commercial
>>> distributions).
>>> Their feedback may arrive in the form of feature proposals from product
>>> managers of those
>>> commercial distributions. This is valuable to the project. I feel that
>>> this kind of contribution needs to be welcomed and acknowledged.
>>>
>>
>> Sebastian and I had discussed removing the "users" role entirely, and
>> recognizing that users are contributors to the project if they
>> interact with this community. I understand your point about users of
>> a downstream project being part of the overall community, but for the
>> purpose of the project's bylaws I believe that they have to interact
>> with this community directly and as individuals to be considered a
>> contributor. Does this make sense to you?
>
> Let me clarify that I would love to have users on there. But I would like to see a clear role/responsibilities so that a user can see how his involvement can impact the project. The way it stood "pure" users would not be able to "make" it to the PMC.
>
> Joe proposed something. Maybe something like the following could also work:
>
> "Users who participate in the cloudstack-users mailing list, help other users, file bugs and feature requests are considered contributors.
> The project sees the contributions as key driver to the health of the community"
>
>
> -Sebastien
>
I'm reworking the Users role in the latest draft, but I want to
highlight one point. We consider users to be the reason that we work
on the project (as noted in the role description), but a user that
doesn't become a contributor isn't going to become a committer (and
therefore won't be eligible to become a member of the PMC). I get
your point that "pure users" should be eligible to become committers /
PMC members, but the very definition of an active contributor allows
for that.
The question is really one of no contribution (of any type) vs. some
contribution. The minute someone contributes, the person is a
contributor.
Take a look at the latest draft with that perspective in mind... Let
me know if I hit the mark, or if I'm out on a limb.
-chip
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/12/12 6:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>> 2.1. Users
>>>>
>>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>>> software. 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.
>>>
>>> There are users of CloudStack-derived products (e.g., users of commercial
>>> distributions).
>>> Their feedback may arrive in the form of feature proposals from product
>>> managers of those
>>> commercial distributions. This is valuable to the project. I feel that
>>> this kind of contribution needs to be welcomed and acknowledged.
>>>
>>
>> Sebastian and I had discussed removing the "users" role entirely, and
>> recognizing that users are contributors to the project if they
>> interact with this community. I understand your point about users of
>> a downstream project being part of the overall community, but for the
>> purpose of the project's bylaws I believe that they have to interact
>> with this community directly and as individuals to be considered a
>> contributor. Does this make sense to you?
>
> Let me clarify that I would love to have users on there. But I would like to see a clear role/responsibilities so that a user can see how his involvement can impact the project. The way it stood "pure" users would not be able to "make" it to the PMC.
>
> Joe proposed something. Maybe something like the following could also work:
>
> "Users who participate in the cloudstack-users mailing list, help other users, file bugs and feature requests are considered contributors.
> The project sees the contributions as key driver to the health of the community"
>
I've switched my position to thinking that we should keep the user
role description, and perhaps this belongs in that section as a method
of communicating that we see pure users that don't contribute as
belonging in the user role, while those that are active on the users
list, irc, etc... are actually project contributors.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/12 6:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> 2.1. Users
>>>
>>> The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>> software. 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.
>>
>> There are users of CloudStack-derived products (e.g., users of commercial
>> distributions).
>> Their feedback may arrive in the form of feature proposals from product
>> managers of those
>> commercial distributions. This is valuable to the project. I feel that
>> this kind of contribution needs to be welcomed and acknowledged.
>>
>
> Sebastian and I had discussed removing the "users" role entirely, and
> recognizing that users are contributors to the project if they
> interact with this community. I understand your point about users of
> a downstream project being part of the overall community, but for the
> purpose of the project's bylaws I believe that they have to interact
> with this community directly and as individuals to be considered a
> contributor. Does this make sense to you?
Let me clarify that I would love to have users on there. But I would like to see a clear role/responsibilities so that a user can see how his involvement can impact the project. The way it stood "pure" users would not be able to "make" it to the PMC.
Joe proposed something. Maybe something like the following could also work:
"Users who participate in the cloudstack-users mailing list, help other users, file bugs and feature requests are considered contributors.
The project sees the contributions as key driver to the health of the community"
-Sebastien
>
>>>
>>> 2.2. Contributors
>>>
>>> Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>>> code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
>>
>> I know Sebastien had a issue with the "etc" as well.
>
> Dropping "etc", agreed
>
>> Well documented
>> feature proposals are also contributions.
>
> Yes, as are vague suggestions (I'm not being filpant with I say that
> either). How about including "making feature or improvement
> suggestions and proposals" to the list.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/12 6:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>2.1. Users
>>
>>The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>>software. 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.
>
> There are users of CloudStack-derived products (e.g., users of commercial
> distributions).
> Their feedback may arrive in the form of feature proposals from product
> managers of those
> commercial distributions. This is valuable to the project. I feel that
> this kind of contribution needs to be welcomed and acknowledged.
>
Sebastian and I had discussed removing the "users" role entirely, and
recognizing that users are contributors to the project if they
interact with this community. I understand your point about users of
a downstream project being part of the overall community, but for the
purpose of the project's bylaws I believe that they have to interact
with this community directly and as individuals to be considered a
contributor. Does this make sense to you?
>>
>>2.2. Contributors
>>
>>Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>>code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
>
> I know Sebastien had a issue with the "etc" as well.
Dropping "etc", agreed
> Well documented
> feature proposals are also contributions.
Yes, as are vague suggestions (I'm not being filpant with I say that
either). How about including "making feature or improvement
suggestions and proposals" to the list.
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
On 12/12/12 6:30 PM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'd like to start a conversation about our project bylaws. This is
>something that an Apache project doesn't absolutely require, but I
>believe that some of the larger TLP's have found it to be valuable.
>More specifically, I would like to see us discuss and agree on the
>contents of the bylaws prior to graduating (hence why I'm bringing it
>up now). If others don't agree that this is the time or place, or
>that they are not needed, then please say so!
>
>For the draft below, I started with the Hadoop project's version
>(found here: http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html ), and then took a
>stab at editing the contents a bit to match some of the conventions
>that we have been using as a community already.
>
>In the draft, I'm assuming that the CloudStack trademark will be
>transfered at or before the time of graduation from the incubator, and
>therefore retained the statements about ASF owning the trademark
>(which is not yet true AFAIK).
>
>I've also retained the references to the PMC, instead of what is
>currently the PPMC. For the purpose of this discussion, consider PMC
>to be equal to the PPMC today (with the obvious qualification that we
>are under the Incubator PMC today).
>
>Section 2.1.4 talks about the PMC being responsible to the board, but
>that will only be the case after we graduate.
>
>Please take a look, and let's start the process of figuring out what's
>good / bad / otherwise about the draft. All opinions are welcome!
>
>-chip
>
>
>*****************************************************
>Draft Apache CloudStack Project Bylaws
>*****************************************************
>
>1. Introduction
>
>1.1. This document defines the bylaws under which the Apache
>CloudStack project operates. It defines the roles and responsibilities
>of the project, who may vote, how voting works, how conflicts are
>resolved, etc.
>
>1.2. CloudStack is a project of the Apache Software Foundation. The
>foundation holds the trademark on the name "CloudStack" and copyright
>on Apache code including the code in the CloudStack codebase. The
>foundation FAQ explains the operation and background of the
>foundation.
>
>1.3. CloudStack is typical of Apache projects in that it operates
>under a set of principles, known collectively as the "Apache Way". If
>you are new to Apache development, please refer to the Incubator
>project for more information on how Apache projects operate.
>
>2. 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:
>
>2.1. Users
>
>The most important participants in the project are people who use our
>software. 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.
There are users of CloudStack-derived products (e.g., users of commercial
distributions).
Their feedback may arrive in the form of feature proposals from product
managers of those
commercial distributions. This is valuable to the project. I feel that
this kind of contribution needs to be welcomed and acknowledged.
>
>2.2. Contributors
>
>Contributors are all of the volunteers who are contributing time,
>code, documentation, or resources to the CloudStack 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. 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.
I know Sebastien had a issue with the "etc" as well. Well documented
feature proposals are also contributions.
>
>2.3. Committers
>
>The project's Committers are responsible for the project's technical
>management. Committers have access to all project source control
>repositories. Committers may cast binding votes on any technical
>discussion regarding the project (or any sub-project).
>
>2.3.1. Committer access is by invitation only and must be approved by
>a majority 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 of active PMC members.
>
>2.3.2. All Apache Committers are required to have a signed Individual
>Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) on file with the Apache Software
>Foundation. There is a Committer FAQ which provides more details on
>the requirements for Committers at Apache.
>
>2.3.3. 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.
>
>2.4. Project Management Committee
>
>The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache CloudStack is
>responsible to the board and the ASF for the management and oversight
>of the Apache CloudStack codebase. The responsibilities of the PMC
>include:
>
>- Deciding what is distributed as products of the Apache CloudStack
>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
>
>2.4.1. Membership of the PMC is by invitation only and must be
>approved by a lazy consensus 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
>lazy consensus of the active PMC members.
>
>2.4.2. 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 CloudStack) and has primary responsibility to the board for the
>management of the projects within the scope of the CloudStack PMC. The
>chair reports to the board quarterly on developments within the
>CloudStack project.
>
>2.4.3. 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.
>
>3. Decision Making
>
>Within the CloudStack project, different types of decisions require
>different forms of approval. For example, the previous section
>describes several decisions which require "lazy consensus" approval.
>This section defines how voting is performed, the types of approvals,
>and which types of decision require which type of approval.
>
>3.1. Voting
>
>3.1.1. Decisions regarding the project are made by votes on the
>primary project development mailing list
>(cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org). Where necessary, PMC voting may
>take place on the private CloudStack 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
>
>+1 "Yes," "Agree," or "the action should be performed." In general,
>this vote also indicates a willingness on the behalf of the voter in
>"making it happen"
>+0 This vote indicates a willingness for the action under
>consideration to go ahead. The voter, however will not be able to
>help.
>-0 This vote indicates that the voter does not, in general, agree with
>the proposed action but is not concerned enough to prevent the action
>going ahead.
>-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.
>
>3.1.2. All participants in the CloudStack 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
>CloudStack community. For PMC decisions, only the votes of PMC members
>are binding.
>
>3.1.3. Voting can also be applied to changes made to the CloudStack
>codebase. These typically take the form of a veto (-1) in reply to the
>commit message sent when the commit is made.
>
>3.2. Approvals
>
>These are the types of approvals that can be sought. Different actions
>require different types of approvals
>
>Lazy Consensus - Lazy consensus requires 3 binding +1 votes and no
>binding vetoes.
>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.
>
>3.3. Vetoes
>
>3.3.1. Vetoes are only possible in a lazy consensus vote.
>
>3.3.2. 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.
>
>3.3.3. 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.
>
>3.4. 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.
>
>3.4.1. Technical Decisions
>
>Technical decisions should be made by the entire community using
>consensus gathering, and not through formal voting. The CloudStack
>community will assume that silence represents consensus on a proposal.
>
>During the consensus gathering process, technical decisions may be
>vetoed by any Committer with a valid reason.
>
>3.4.2. Release Plan
>
>Defines the timetable and actions for a release. The plan also
>nominates a Release Manager.
>
>Lazy majority of active committers
>
>3.4.3. Product Release
>
>When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
>required to accept the release as an official release of the project.
>
>Lazy Majority of active PMC members
>
>3.4.4. 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 within the project
>
>Lazy 2/3 majority of PMC members
Did you leave out "active" here?
>
>3.4.5. New Committer
>
>When a new committer is proposed for the project
>
>Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>
>3.4.6. New PMC Member
>
>When a committer is proposed for the PMC
>
>Lazy consensus of active PMC members
>
>3.4.7. Committer Removal
>
>When removal of commit privileges is sought. Note: Such actions will
>also be referred to the ASF board by the PMC chair
>
>Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the committer in
>question if a member of the PMC).
>
>3.4.8. 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.
>
>Lazy 2/3 majority of active PMC members (excluding the member in question)
>
>3.4.9. Modifying Bylaws
>
>Modifying this document.
>
>Lazy majority of active PMC members
>
>3.5. Voting Timeframes
>
>Formal votes are open for a period of at least 72 hours to allow all
>active voters time to consider the vote.
>
>*****************************************************