Inconsistency between Projects page and Bylaws
iris.clark at oracle.com
Fri Apr 12 18:11:41 UTC 2013
Good catch. The intention is that the Project overview page  always be consistent with the Bylaws. The statement at the top is there just in case there are errors such as this one.
I've appended the diff I applied to the Project page last night. Please let me know if I missed anything.
--- a/src/projects/index.html Thu Apr 11 23:35:11 2013 -0700
+++ b/src/projects/index.html Thu Apr 11 23:45:02 2013 -0700
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ Reviewer. </p>
<dd> <p> Send a call-for-votes to the Project's OpenJDK <a
href="http://mail.openjdk.java.net">mailing list</a>. The voting method for
- approval is <a href="http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws#lazy-consensus">Lazy
+ approval is <a href="/bylaws#three-vote-consensus">Three-Vote
Consensus</a> and only current <a href="/census">Reviewers</a> are eligible
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ this nomination. Votes must be cast in
this nomination. Votes must be cast in the open by replying to
this mailing list.
-For Lazy Consensus voting instructions, see .
+For Three-Vote Consensus voting instructions, see .
From: Omair Majid [mailto:omajid at redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 2:33 PM
To: discuss at openjdk.java.net
Subject: Inconsistency between Projects page and Bylaws
I noticed that there is some inconsistency between the bylaws  and the projects page  in how Reviewers are nominated. The bylaws say:
A Reviewer for a Project may nominate any of that Project’s Committers to be a new Reviewer for that Project. Such nominations are approved by a Three-Vote Consensus of the Project’s Reviewers.
while the projects page says:
Any Project Reviewer may nominate any of the Project's Committers to be a Project Reviewer of the same Project.
Send a call-for-votes to the Project's OpenJDK mailing list. The voting method for approval is Lazy Consensus and only current Reviewers are eligible to vote.
The project page clearly states that "if there is a conflict between this page and the Bylaws then the Bylaws are considered authoritative."
But I think it makes sense to fix the projects page anyway to avoid confusion.
PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
More information about the discuss