Apertium has moved from SourceForge to GitHub.
If you have any questions, please come and talk to us on #apertium on irc.freenode.net or contact the GitHub migration team.

PMC proposals/Interpretation of bylaw 11

From Apertium
< PMC proposals(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comments)
(don't want to give the impression that our tacit "4 yes'es required" is any better :-/)
Line 31: Line 31:
 
* I think the current wording of Bylaw 11 "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, a PMC member will give write access." should be changed to "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the PMC will vote on write access according to bylaw 18 e" --[[User:Mlforcada|Mlforcada]] ([[User talk:Mlforcada|talk]]) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (CET)
 
* I think the current wording of Bylaw 11 "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, a PMC member will give write access." should be changed to "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the PMC will vote on write access according to bylaw 18 e" --[[User:Mlforcada|Mlforcada]] ([[User talk:Mlforcada|talk]]) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (CET)
 
** So they still have to commit code in order to be allowed to commit code? --[[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)
 
** So they still have to commit code in order to be allowed to commit code? --[[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)
** How would voting work? If we don't specify, this is even worse. At least now we have a practice of requiring 4 PMC members to say yes; but just saying "vote" could mean anything from "one person is enough" to "everyone has to have voted and nothing happens until everyone has said something" to "everyone has to say yes, a single no means no commit access" etc etc. --[[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)
+
** How would voting work? If we don't specify, this is even worse. Currently we have a practice of requiring 4 PMC members to say yes; but just saying "vote" could mean anything from "one person is enough" to "everyone has to have voted and nothing happens until everyone has said something" to "everyone has to say yes, a single no means no commit access" etc etc. --[[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] ([[User talk:Unhammer|talk]]) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)
   
 
==Voting==
 
==Voting==

Revision as of 10:56, 30 January 2015

Contents

Summary

Clause 11 of the bylaws currently states:

  1. Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, a PMC member will give write access.

The interpretation of the PMC to date has been that committer access is granted upon sponsorship of two existing PMC members. I propose to either:

1) Adopt the current wording

or

2) Amend the bylaws to state 'PMC members' in place of 'Committers'

(If '1' is selected, the vote should be summarised as 'Accepted'; if '2' is selected, the vote should be summarised as 'Bylaws amended').

Proposed by: Jimregan (talk) Seconded by:

In detail

Caveats

Comments

  • I think the current wording of Bylaw 11 "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, a PMC member will give write access." should be changed to "Committer access is received by committing code and getting sponsorship by two existing Committers, a nominator and a seconder. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the PMC will vote on write access according to bylaw 18 e" --Mlforcada (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (CET)
    • So they still have to commit code in order to be allowed to commit code? --unhammer (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)
    • How would voting work? If we don't specify, this is even worse. Currently we have a practice of requiring 4 PMC members to say yes; but just saying "vote" could mean anything from "one person is enough" to "everyone has to have voted and nothing happens until everyone has said something" to "everyone has to say yes, a single no means no commit access" etc etc. --unhammer (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (CET)

Voting

Adopt existing wording (option 1)

Amend bylaws (option 2)

Abstain

Personal tools