[ZF] Re: Zope Foundation draft docs available for review/comment

[Tres Seaver]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks to all involved for the work involved!  A couple of observations,
and then some errata:

o I think some "rationale" for the documents might help inform comment,
  especially given distribution as PDF (which makes textual comparison
  tedious)  E.g.:

  - How does the contributor agreement differ from the current one?
    Name changes only?

  - How does the ZPL 2.2 differ from 2.1?  Is it also name changes only?

  - Could we highligh changes to the bylaws / membership from the
    versions outlined earlier this year?

o The by-laws and membership agreement refer to a "Zope Devleopment
  Process" and related terms ("PMC", etc.), but no document defining
  them is present.

o The "councils" created by the bylaws (architecture, planning, and
  requirements) look a bit top-heavy to me, especially without the
  development process being spelled out.  The right to appoint members
  of those councils is a carrot for the "strategic" membership classes,
  I guess, but the bylaws don't acknowledge the "organic" mechanisms
  alraedy in existence whic address the same issues.


Errata:

 ZopeFoundation_TM_LicenseFromZopeCorp_v14_with_line_numbers.pdf

   7.2.1

   - "IRC" needs to be spelled out as "Internal Revenue Code".

 ZopeFoundation_Committer_Agreement_v3_with_line_numbers.pdf

   2.

   - Needs definition of "the Program"

   - Rather than "Your transmission of a password", should include
     "Use of your SSH public key" (which is the only permitted access
     mechanism for doing commits).

 ZopeFoundation_ZPL22_v1_with_line_numbers.pdf

   Line 26:  This paragraph should probably be #6 in the "list of
             conditions" required to be retained.

 ZopeFoundation_ByLaws_v4_with_line_numbers.pdf

   3.3.3 "open seats on the Board allocated Committer Members" should
         probably be "allocated to committer members".


   3.3.4 Confusion between "Solution Provider Members" (which are
         likely to be companies) and directors:  "Only Solution
         Providers are eligible to serve as SP Directors".  I
         presume that SP directors must be individuals representing
         an SP member.

   3.12.2 &
   6.12.2  Neither "Electronic Voting" specifies how such votes are
           to be authenticated, which won't matter until it does.
           Could we require that electronic ballots be GPG signed?
           Members would, in that case, submit GPG public keys as
           part of their membership application.

- --
===================================================================
Tres Seaver          +1 202-558-7113          tseaver at palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDi2qm+gerLs4ltQ4RAlbPAKCtqzrdbSHOldbLGWz/GIgnoH5HwwCeMpYt
Sspg/HLlb4DGopp2F8OLphI=
=IlG4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----