-Re: [VOTE] Proposed bylaws for the Hadoop project
Chris Douglas 2009-11-03, 05:05
This will be helpful. Random questions/thoughts:
* The intro should also mention that Apache owns the trademark for
"Hadoop", in addition to the copyright for its source.
* What does it mean for code changes to have "Lazy approval and then
* Most votes- particularly on releases- take longer than 3 days in
practice. Late votes are usually permitted, as are vetos. Perhaps no
vote can pass in fewer than 3 full business days?
* Does a vetoed proposal require a new vote, or does a vote pass when
all vetos are recanted? Can new objections/vetos be raised during that
* With consensus and 2/3 majorities, a 6 month emeritus period seems
reasonable to me. However, the actions requiring them in the current
document are rare (I hope), so arguing over these details may not be
worthwhile. Surely we wouldn't move someone into that category without
first asking them if they plan to become more active in the near term.
It's important that this not be used to push people out, particularly
since the 2/3 and consensus votes may be swayed by "noticing" inactive
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for adoption, and +1 for the two minor changes Doug proposes.
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>> These look good to me. +1
>> A few minor changes I'd prefer but not insist on:
>> - Replace the term "developer" with "contributor". This seems more
>> precise and consistent with our wiki documentation.
>> - Emeritus timeout should be 12 months instead of 6. Perhaps this doesn't
>> matter, since we're not bound to make someone emeritus after six months, but
>> events might reasonably keep someone away for six, and I think we've
>> generally not bothered to make anyone emeritus until they've been idle for
>> 12 months, so 12 months seems more descriptive of our actual practice.
>> Thanks for proposing this!
>> Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>> We should have created bylaws when we were established as a PMC back in
>>> Jan 2008, but it has become clear that we need to define them. I looked
>>> around and the Ant project had bylaws that were both clear and fairly
>>> complete. I made some minor edits to match what we do. Please look them over
>>> and vote. In a recursive usage, let's use 2/3 majority to approve these
>>> -- Owen