incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Apache project bylaws
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:31:39 GMT
For committership, that is typical. Most PMCs allow a veto for adding
new members to the PMC.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Joseph Schaefer <> wrote:
> Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
> statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
> procedural (simple majority) votes.
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
>> On 10/3/13 6:23 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/13 12:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <> wrote:
>>>>> Rather than a "rewrite", I suggest proposing small, incremental,
>>>>> reversible
>>>>> changes.  Governance is easy to mess up.
>>>> Well, "small, incremental" was hard to do given the significantly
>>>> different information this document must now convey.
>>> I appreciate the labor you've put in, but what we have here is akin to a
>>> big patch on highly sensitive mission-critical code for which there are no
>>> tests.  I hope we can find a less costly way to integrate your efforts.
>> It is a big patch for sure, but I'm not sure I agree with equating it to
>> code.  It is probably always going to be "just words" and I'm not sure you
>> can create tests.  I think even laws don't have tests, they only have to
>> survive the reviews of the approvers and are always subject to revision
>> later.  But hopefully the reviewers will think through whether the things
>> they thought were "right" about the old version are retained and whether
>> the things that were "wrong" have been removed, and new content appears to
>> be "right".
>>>> I tried to keep as
>>>> much as possible yet incorporate feedback from Doug and Roy.
>>> Even if it was "wrong", people have been quoting from that document,
>>> referencing it and following its guidance for a long time.  I'm quite
>>> irritated that something "wrong" has persisted for so long and has been
>>> used
>>> so many times as the basis for settling disputes.
>>> My take is that if that fundamental a document is "wrong", something is
>>> dreadfully "wrong" with how hard-won wisdom gets handed down at the ASF.
>>> Let's step back for a moment and reassess what we're trying to accomplish.
>>> We're starting with a voting document which is apparently "wrong" and
>>> trying
>>> to make it quasi-authoritative.  But when we're finished turd polishing,
>>> there
>>> will still be no boundaries demarcating where the authoritative stuff
>>> begins
>>> and ends.
>>> We have this problem with the Incubator website, too.  It started off with
>>> buckets of poorly-thought-through text scooped out of mailing lists and
>>> dumped
>>> into version control.  Years later, certain portions of it have been
>>> carefully
>>> wordsmithed or even negotiated under high heat; as a result, making a
>>> minor
>>> change has the potential to obliterate a great deal of other people's hard
>>> work.  But from just looking at the surface, you can't tell what's
>>> garbage and
>>> what's crucial.
>>> Personally, I'm not eager to spend a lot of cycles negotiating large
>>> revisions
>>> to highly-utilized governance documentation under such a flawed regime.
>>> I'd
>>> rather that we limit ourselves to small tweaks, or if we're going to go
>>> all
>>> out, draw up a set of default bylaws which will in the future be set off
>>> from
>>> other documentation and subject to review-then-commit by some governing
>>> body
>>> charged with oversight.
>> Some good points in there.  I know you want to revise the incubator site
>> and I wish you well on your efforts to do so because I agree it needs it.,
>> However I just want to change this one document, and it shouldn't require
>> the restructuring of a site, so I want to separate the two efforts,
>> although maybe this effort will influence yours.
>> So how about this:  I will go all out and rewrite this one document so it
>> will demarcate what is authoritative and what isn't.  And I will try to
>> make it clear that the goal of the document is to define a set of default
>> by-laws.  And I will retain the entirety of the old document for
>> historical reference.  To do so, I will insert the rewrite at the
>> beginning of the document after I get lazy consensus on the following text
>> which will go at the very beginning.
>>       This document is under revision.  The original can be found here
>>       (#link_to_original_further_down).  All decision based on the
>>       original document remain valid and the original document remains
>>        valid until further notice.  The text color of the original
>>       document has been changed to (brown) to help delineate the
>>       boundaries of the original content.
>> All authoritative sections will be demarcated with:
>>       --this section is authoritative--
>> And end with:
>>       --end of authoritative section--
>> My understanding is that only the code-modification and release voting
>> approval type is authoritative.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>> Below is my
>>>> proposed version, and below it is the svn diff in case that makes it
>>>> easier to see what changed.  Most of the changes were made at the
>>>> beginning.
>>> The formatting of the diff is messed up because of line wrapping by your
>>> email
>>> client.  Please take the time to present such a costly-to-review patch in
>>> a
>>> way which accommodates your potential reviewers.  I suggest posting a
>>> link to
>>> a persistent paste created using <>.
>> And with the above disclaimer, instead of using paste.a.o, I propose to
>> revise this document using CMS and/or SVN.  That way we can track changes,
>> and I can use color and other HTML features to show changes, and you can
>> use your favorite tools to see the patch as well, although the first
>> commit will just look like a giant insert.  And yes, I will push these
>> revisions live via commit-then-review since they are under disclaimer,
>> although you can certainly convince me to just leave them on the stage.
>> But don't panic, I won't commit anything until I get 72-hour lazy
>> consensus on the disclaimer.
>> -Alex
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message