You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2010/11/08 04:40:36 UTC
[VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Hi all,
I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to
read the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1,
-1 or 0 within the next 72 hours.
In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's
lazy majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So
vote! :).
Thanks,
-- leif
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 11/09/2010 01:26 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> I see little need for an additional "Bylaws".
>
> I think following the foundation guidelines are all that 90% of
> projects need for their day to day lives:
> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>
So what do you all think? Should we shelve the bylaws for now, and deal
with any issues in the future? I agree there's very low risk atm that
we'd end up in a situation where we can't resolve it by just being
reasonable.
-- leif
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
I see little need for an additional "Bylaws".
I think following the foundation guidelines are all that 90% of
projects need for their day to day lives:
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>
I think adding an additional bylaws about exceptional things are not needed.
Don't build policies and processes around things that shouldn't be
happening -- and so far haven't needed to happen.
If the project is healthy, it shouldn't need to ever refere to the
bylaws for the definition of consensus.
If the project is in trouble, then sure, add process, add rules, add
bylaws, but by default, leave it open, let people do things without
constraints.
Consensus is the community working together on a shared vision, it is
not about voting and waiting 7 days to see if no one sends a -1. Its
about convincing your peers that a technical decision is the right
one.
Thanks,
Paul
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed Bylaws
> document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an important
> issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read the
> proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or 0 within
> the next 72 hours.
>
> In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
> proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's lazy
> majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So vote!
> :).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- leif
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
Sounds good to me.
john
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 03:41 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy
>> consensus falling back to 2/3 majority?
>>
>
> Sounds too complicated IMO. :)
>
> We could just do lazy consensus in the bylaws for now, for the release
> artifacts, and if it ever becomes a problem, we revert to public flogging.
>
> Joking aside, we can change the Bylaws later if this would become an
> unresolvable problem (that's why I put in some additions on voting on
> changes to the Bylaws, which in my proposal are 2/3 majority votes).
>
> -- leif
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 11/08/2010 03:41 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
> I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy
> consensus falling back to 2/3 majority?
Sounds too complicated IMO. :)
We could just do lazy consensus in the bylaws for now, for the release
artifacts, and if it ever becomes a problem, we revert to public flogging.
Joking aside, we can change the Bylaws later if this would become an
unresolvable problem (that's why I put in some additions on voting on
changes to the Bylaws, which in my proposal are 2/3 majority votes).
-- leif
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
I agree that it could be a problem to have a single veto. Perhaps lazy
consensus falling back to 2/3 majority?
john
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
>> Seems
>> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would
>> be
>> more
>> appropriate.
>>
>
> I'm fine with that, if that's what people prefer? Basically, this would
> make any release vetoable by a single binding vote (which I've heard has
> caused problems with other projects, but that doesn't mean we'd ever have
> that problem).
>
> Any other thoughts / comments? I think this means we'll have to update the
> proposal, and start a new vote. But please post comments and suggestions
> asap so we can get this finished.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Leif
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> I have a couple concerns.
>
> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> don't
> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want
> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
Agreed, so should we add a section saying that unless otherwise
specified, votes will run for 72 hours ?
> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
> Seems
> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be
> more
> appropriate.
I'm fine with that, if that's what people prefer? Basically, this would
make any release vetoable by a single binding vote (which I've heard
has caused problems with other projects, but that doesn't mean we'd ever
have that problem).
Any other thoughts / comments? I think this means we'll have to update
the proposal, and start a new vote. But please post comments and
suggestions asap so we can get this finished.
Cheers,
-- Leif
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by "Alan M. Carroll" <am...@network-geographics.com>.
I agree with John.
Monday, November 8, 2010, 3:27:55 PM, you wrote:
> I have a couple concerns.
> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> don't
> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want
> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
> Seems
> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be
> more
> appropriate.
> Comments?
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
>
>> I have a couple concerns.
>>
>> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
>> don't
>> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't
>> want
>> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
>>
>
> Actually, re-reading the page and your question, never mind my previous
> answer (we already have the 72 hour time limit on all normal votes).
>
> Yes, there is no specific text dealing with required people not voting on a
> consensus vote. We have two options:
>
> 1) add what you propose, that not voting on a Consensus vote becomes an
> implicit "0" vote (I don't know of any better definition of abstain than
> that).
>
>
I think we should clarify this. I do hope it doesn't come up, but I'd
rather have it written
down if we need it. For consensus we could make it a week which I think is
more than
reasonable.
> 2) leave it as is, and hope that if we ever get to a consensus vote
> situation, we'll get everyone on the PMC to vote.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- Leif
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 11/08/2010 02:27 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> I have a couple concerns.
>
> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> don't
> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want
> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
Actually, re-reading the page and your question, never mind my previous
answer (we already have the 72 hour time limit on all normal votes).
Yes, there is no specific text dealing with required people not voting
on a consensus vote. We have two options:
1) add what you propose, that not voting on a Consensus vote becomes an
implicit "0" vote (I don't know of any better definition of abstain than
that).
2) leave it as is, and hope that if we ever get to a consensus vote
situation, we'll get everyone on the PMC to vote.
Thoughts?
-- Leif
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
Abstain... damn those spell checkers
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:27 PM, John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I have a couple concerns.
>
> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> don't
> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't
> want
> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
>
> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
> Seems
> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be
> more
> appropriate.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
>> Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
>> important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read
>> the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or 0
>> within the next 72 hours.
>>
>> In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
>> proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's lazy
>> majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So vote!
>> :).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- leif
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 11/09/2010 06:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In general, a release can not be vetoed, but it is a gauge to whether
> the RM wants to continue or not.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Cool, that makes sense. So lets leave this vote as lazy majority, as it
is in the proposal.
Jim: Can we still make an addendum to the consensus vote, and postulate
that no vote within 7 days becomes an abstained vote ("0") ? There's
only two cases in our Bylaws where this would apply, for the removal of
committer and PMC membership (other than due to inactivity).
Thanks!
-- leif
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
In general, a release can not be vetoed, but it is a gauge to whether
the RM wants to continue or not.
See:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:36 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote
> against
> means that there is some critical bug which should be fixed before release.
>
> I'd like to think that we err on the side of conservatism as if you need a
> particular feature you can always resort to svn.
>
> john
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Wyn Williams <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate
>> its release ?
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote:
>>
>>> I have a couple concerns.
>>>
>>> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
>>> don't
>>> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't
>> want
>>> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
>>>
>>> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
>>> Seems
>>> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would
>> be
>>> more
>>> appropriate.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
>>>> Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
>>>> important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to
>> read
>>>> the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or
>> 0
>>>> within the next 72 hours.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
>>>> proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's
>> lazy
>>>> majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So
>> vote!
>>>> :).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -- leif
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
>>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@acm.org>.
Folks still have to vote on whether or not it is ready. Typically a vote
against
means that there is some critical bug which should be fixed before release.
I'd like to think that we err on the side of conservatism as if you need a
particular feature you can always resort to svn.
john
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Wyn Williams <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate
> its release ?
>
> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote:
>
> > I have a couple concerns.
> >
> > Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> > don't
> > respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't
> want
> > to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
> >
> > Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
> > Seems
> > to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would
> be
> > more
> > appropriate.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
> > > Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
> > > important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to
> read
> > > the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or
> 0
> > > within the next 72 hours.
> > >
> > > In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
> > > proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's
> lazy
> > > majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So
> vote!
> > > :).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -- leif
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
> > >
>
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by Wyn Williams <he...@gmail.com>.
should not the technical expediency and readiness of a system dictate
its release ?
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 13:27 -0800, John Plevyak wrote:
> I have a couple concerns.
>
> Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
> don't
> respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want
> to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
>
> Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
> Seems
> to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be
> more
> appropriate.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
> > Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
> > important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read
> > the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or 0
> > within the next 72 hours.
> >
> > In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
> > proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's lazy
> > majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So vote!
> > :).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- leif
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
> >
Re: [VOTE] Bylaws proposal
Posted by John Plevyak <jp...@apache.org>.
I have a couple concerns.
Primarily with Consensus definition. I think we need to say that if you
don't
respond within a particular time (1 week) then you obtain. I wouldn't want
to have folks who have vanished hold up a "consensus".
Secondly, I am wondering if Majority is the correct way to do a release.
Seems
to me a release is a significant event, and perhaps lazy consensus would be
more
appropriate.
Comments?
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've not received any further comments or suggestions on the proposed
> Bylaws document, so I would like to start the vote for this. This is an
> important issue, so I urge all PMC members, and the entire community to read
> the proposal, and vote. Please cast your vote (please vote!), +1, -1 or 0
> within the next 72 hours.
>
> In particular, make sure you are OK with the vote requirements in this
> proposal. For example, a release artifact is only releasable if there's lazy
> majority (at least 3 +1 binding votes, and more +1's than -1's). So vote!
> :).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- leif
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TS/BylawsDraft
>