metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Bylaws discussion
Date Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:43:54 GMT
I think lazy consensus for code modification is appropriate for where we
are at with Metron.  As the community matures, we can revisit if needed.

I am a +1 on the bylaws as you have them written.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:

> We do not currently have bylaws, so we default we are in sort of nebulous
> territory from what I can tell.  Take the voting on code modifications, for
> instance, we are bound by the rules here
> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>, from my understanding
> (since we don't have voted-in bylaws):
> >
> > For code-modification votes, +1 votes are in favour of the proposal, but
> > -1 votes are vetos <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto>
> and
> > kill the proposal dead until all vetoers withdraw their -1 votes.
> >
> > Unless a vote has been declared as using lazy consensus
> > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> , three +1
> > votes are required for a code-modification proposal to pass.
> >
> > We, however, have adopted a de facto 2 +1's for code modification.  The
> bylaws that we put up originally state a lazy consensus of 1 +1 is
> sufficient.
>
> What I propose is that we figure out what they SHOULD be and abide by the
> stated bylaws that we advertise.
> There is not a good way to see the diff because we abide by de facto rules
> that do not seem to be written down.
>
> I would read the original proposed bylaws and see if you see differences in
> how we act day-to-day and if you're ok with those differences.  If not,
> then bring it up on this thread and we can hash it out.
>
> I am not champing at the bit for a vote, but I would like us to have
> bylaws, so I wanted to make sure this wasn't a "consensus of silence"
> situation.  I think we can stand a bit of discussion on this and thus far
> there has been only crickets.
>
> Casey
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > I don't quite understand the proposal.  How do these bylaws differ from
> > what is already in-place?  Is there a way I can see the diff between what
> > we have now?
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, it's been a month of crickets.  I'm going to put this up for a
> vote.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to get the Apache bylaws that we have on the website
> discussed
> > > > and possibly voted in.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone have anything to object to in the bylaws as listed here
> > > > <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/METRON/Apache+Metron+Bylaws
> > > >?
> > > >
> > > > Casey
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> >
>



-- 
Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message