[RESULT] [VOTE] Modify Bylaws

[James Sirota <js...@apache.org>]

Vote passes with 3 binding +1's (kyle, nick casey) and 1 non-binding +1 (matt)

Will make the modifications

18.12.2016, 11:47, "Kyle Richardson" <ky...@gmail.com>:
> +1 (binding)
>
> -Kyle
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
>> �Oops. My vote is binding. +1
>>
>> �On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Casey Stella <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> �> +1 binding
>> �> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 18:20 Matt Foley <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> �>
>> �> > Um, should have stated \u201cnon-binding\u201d, on both recents.
>> �> >
>> �> > On 12/16/16, 3:17 PM, "Matt Foley" <mf...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > +1
>> �> >
>> �> > On 12/16/16, 10:30 AM, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > I am reading the aggregate effect of these changes as a veto
>> �only
>> �> > exists
>> �> > for a code commit. For all other votes, there is no such thing
>> �> as
>> �> > a veto.
>> �> >
>> �> > +1
>> �> >
>> �> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:13 PM, James Sirota <
>> �> jsirota@apache.org>
>> �> > wrote:
>> �> >
>> �> > > Sorry, cut and paste error. Of course the original text
>> �> > currently says the
>> �> > > following:
>> �> > >
>> �> > > -1 \u2013 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.
>> �> > >
>> �> > > 16.12.2016, 10:54, "Nick Allen" <ni...@nickallen.org>:
>> �> > > > I don't see any changes in your "Change 1". Am I missing
>> �it?
>> �> > What
>> �> > > changed?
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:01 PM, James Sirota <
>> �> > jsirota@apache.org>
>> �> > > wrote:
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > >> Based on the discuss thread I propose the following
>> �> changes:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Change 1 - Replace:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
>> �is
>> �> > required,
>> �> > > this
>> �> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
>> �> > commits and must
>> �> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
>> �> > appropriate. Vetoes
>> �> > > with
>> �> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
>> �where a
>> �> > majority is
>> �> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
>> �> > may also be
>> �> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
>> �alternative
>> �> > course of
>> �> > > >> action.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> With
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -1 \u2013 This is a negative vote. On issues where consensus
>> �is
>> �> > required,
>> �> > > this
>> �> > > >> vote counts as a veto. Vetoes are only valid for code
>> �> > commits and must
>> �> > > >> include a technical explanation of why the veto is
>> �> > appropriate. Vetoes
>> �> > > with
>> �> > > >> no or non-technical explanation are void. On issues
>> �where a
>> �> > majority is
>> �> > > >> required, -1 is simply a vote against. In either case, it
>> �> > may also be
>> �> > > >> appropriate for a -1 vote to include a proposed
>> �alternative
>> �> > course of
>> �> > > >> action.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Change 2 - Replace:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> A valid, binding veto cannot be overruled. If a veto is
>> �> > cast, it must
>> �> > > be
>> �> > > >> accompanied by a valid reason explaining the reasons for
>> �> the
>> �> > veto. The
>> �> > > >> validity of a veto, if challenged, can be confirmed by
>> �> > anyone who has a
>> �> > > >> binding vote. This does not necessarily signify agreement
>> �> > with the
>> �> > > veto -
>> �> > > >> merely that the veto is valid. If you disagree with a
>> �valid
>> �> > veto, you
>> �> > > must
>> �> > > >> lobby the person casting the veto to withdraw their veto.
>> �> If
>> �> > a veto is
>> �> > > not
>> �> > > >> withdrawn, any action that has already been taken must be
>> �> > reversed in a
>> �> > > >> timely manner.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> With:
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> A valid, binding veto regarding a code commit cannot be
>> �> > overruled. If a
>> �> > > >> veto is cast, it must be accompanied by a valid technical
>> �> > explanation
>> �> > > >> giving the reasons for the veto. The technical validity
>> �of
>> �> a
>> �> > veto, if
>> �> > > >> challenged, can be confirmed by anyone who has a binding
>> �> > vote. This
>> �> > > does
>> �> > > >> not necessarily signify agreement with the veto - merely
>> �> > that the veto
>> �> > > is
>> �> > > >> valid. If you disagree with a valid veto, you must lobby
>> �> the
>> �> > person
>> �> > > casting
>> �> > > >> the veto to withdraw their veto. If a veto is not
>> �> withdrawn,
>> �> > any action
>> �> > > >> that has already been taken must be reversed in a timely
>> �> > manner.
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> Please vote +1, -1, 0
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> -------------------
>> �> > > >> Thank you,
>> �> > > >>
>> �> > > >> James Sirota
>> �> > > >> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
>> �> > > >> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>> �> > > >
>> �> > > > --
>> �> > > > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>> �> > >
>> �> > > -------------------
>> �> > > Thank you,
>> �> > >
>> �> > > James Sirota
>> �> > > PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
>> �> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
>> �> > >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> > --
>> �> > Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �> >
>> �>
>>
>> �--
>> �Nick Allen <ni...@nickallen.org>

-------------------�
Thank you,

James Sirota
PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
jsirota AT apache DOT org