OpenJDK Community Bylaws
tinjon at gmail.com
Fri Feb 4 17:06:02 PST 2011
Feedback on the DRAFT 7 version as posted at
Section 2: Clarification needed
"Only a Contributor may submit anything larger than a simple patch."
This is too vague. If making a reference to a term, then that term
needs to be self evident or defined and the meaning of a "simple
patch" is unfortunately not self evident.
Section 7: Missing mechanism or authority to revoke commit access.
If the Project Lead lacks the authority to revoke commit access, then
who has that authority?
Section 7: Unclear community contribution process
What mechanism or procedure exists for developers not affiliated with
the cathedral outlined in the document, to provide patches and retain
recognition for those contributions?
A framing example should the question as stated not be recognizable to
A common procedure employed by Committers of projects which manage
their artifacts in the Git Version Control System (VCS) is to leverage
the concept of pulling changeset contributions from developers not
affiliated with the project. Through this simple concept, to not only
push to a master repository, but also to pull from unofficial project
branches created by non-project members, Committers are awarded a very
efficient and straight forward process for incorporating outside
changes they deem worthy and which meet their project's specific
criteria for inclusion. Recognition is in the given example both
awarded and also retained through VCS metadata, associated with each
changeset and is incorporated when and if a Committer deems the
contribution fitting, into the annals of project history upon his or
her decision to push the changeset onto the official project artifact
repository (VCS repository),
Section 13: Clarification or rephrasing needed
"Only three unsuccessful appeals by any particular Governing Board
member are permitted in any twelve-month period."
The sentence needs at best rephrasing, at worst be expanded. Was the
word "unsuccessful" included by mistake? If not then the sentence
makes no sense. An appeal raised has an indeterminate qualification
prior to judgement and only after it has been judged can its
qualification status be determined as successful or unsuccessful.
If you meant to convey that each board member may object at most three
times per year to a technical or release decision made by the OpenJDK
Leader, then I believe the rationale or at least the logic behind it
needs to be expanded because it is not intuitive nor understandable to
a reader such as I, in contrast with the rest of the document's
More information about the gb-discuss