top posting. I wish everyone a merry christmas and some relaxing time with those close to you.
my wish for christmas is simple, a couple of +1 signalling that somebody read and agree with my proposal :-) all the best. rgds jan I. On 20 December 2013 01:04, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 20 December 2013 00:51, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 19 December 2013 23:30, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 17 December 2013 23:12, David Crossley <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> jan i wrote: >> >> > After a couple of hick ups, I hope this mail comes through. >> >> > >> >> > even though its something PMC should discuss on private-labs@ I >> sent the >> >> > mail to labs@ due to some mail problems, sorry for that. >> >> >> >> Jan, i just want to reply to this part at this stage. >> >> No, it is not something that should be discussed on private@ lists. >> >> Here is one reference, there may be others: >> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#mailing-list-naming-policy >> >> So everything on this list unless it is personnel matters, etc. >> >> >> > >> > I agree with you, but you should see, what at least one project (AOO) >> put >> > in the private list, so I guess I am just a burned kid. >> >> I agree that there are some threads on AOO private that almost >> certainly do not belong there. >> >> However it is not just personnel stuff that may need to be private. >> For example trademark discussions. >> > +1 > >> >> If you feel that a particular AOO private thread should be held >> elsewhere then it is best to raise it ASAP in the thread. >> > sorry it was just to explain, the reasoning behind my words, I believe the > Apache way is a big wide highway with not only one correct solution, and in > every project you have to adapt to a slightly different way of doing things. > > Any problem I might have (which I dont) with any project I particate in > will of course be discussed in private on that projects list. > > labs is like infra different than "normal" projects, it is a project that > goes across other project (which is what makes it interesting), and > therefore I reckon focus are higher on the community value. > > rgds > jan I. > > > > >> > However I do hope something is going on private, since this list is dead >> > silent, and I had hoped at least for somebody to comment on my requst, >> and >> > not to forget proposal to change the web page. >> > >> > rgds >> > jan I. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -David >> >> >> >> > rgds >> >> > jan I. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> > From: jan i <[email protected]> >> >> > Date: 16 December 2013 01:10 >> >> > Subject: [request for Vote] change of bylaws >> >> > To: [email protected] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Hi. >> >> > >> >> > Not being PMC (not even labs committer) I can only request a vote, >> >> > which I hereby do. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The charter [1] and homepage [2] for labs says: >> >> > >> >> > - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The creation of >> >> > the lab requires a PMC lazy consensus vote >> >> > (at least three +1 and no -1, 72 hours). >> >> > >> >> > However the foundations glossary [3] defines lazy consensus today as: >> >> > >> >> > *Lazy consensus*(Also called 'lazy approval'.) A decision-making >> policy >> >> > which assumes general consent if no responses are posted within a >> defined >> >> > period. For example, "I'm going to commit this by lazy consensus if >> >> no-one >> >> > objects within the next three days." Also see Consensus >> >> > Approval< >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval>, >> >> > Majority >> >> > Approval < >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval>, >> >> > and the description of the voting >> >> > process <http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I propose the bylaws to be changed as follows: >> >> > >> >> > - Every ASF committer can ask for one or more labs. The lab creation >> >> > requires PMC lazy concensus, if no PMC sends a mail with -1 to >> >> > [email protected] within the lazy consensus period, the lab request is >> >> > accepted. >> >> > >> >> > Change in the bylaws [2] requires 2/3 vote from the PMC members. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Voting positively on this will also solve >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LABS-512 >> >> > >> >> > As mentioned in my other mail, I strongly believe in labs and would >> >> > like to help to "rejuvenate" labs and put it back into the central >> >> > place it belongs. >> >> > >> >> > thanks in advance for your time (and vote) >> >> > >> >> > rgds >> >> > jan I. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > [1] >> >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/board_minutes_2006_11_15.txt >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > [2] http://labs.apache.org/bylaws.html >> >> > [3] http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >
