This page defines the Bylaws for the Apache HttpComponents project. These Bylaws are established by the Apache HttpComponents PMC and apply for operation of this project only. The Apache Software Foundation has its own set of ASF Bylaws, which define PMCs in section 6.4. Since we are an Apache project, it will be useful for you to understand How the ASF Works.
We have a Charter that states what we do. These Bylaws explain how we do it.
The Project Management Committee (PMC) was established by the ASF Board in November 2007 and is responsible to the ASF Board for oversight of the HttpComponents project. One PMC member is chosen to serve as the PMC chair. The PMC chair is the primary contact to the Apache Board and responsible for submitting the HttpComponents board reports.
The authoritative list of PMC members is maintained in committee-info.txt and accessible to all Apache committers. The public list of members on our website is informal and may temporarily run out of sync when PMC members fluctuate.
The PMC can vote in new PMC members. Candidates are typically found among the committers of the project and must be nominated by a current PMC member. Candidates are not strictly required to be committers of the project, but only Apache committers can be nominated. A candidate voted in has to accept the role of PMC member in order to join the PMC. If the role is not accepted immediately, the vote result remains effectual for one year after the candidate has been notified. During this time, the candidate can accept the role and join the PMC without a new voting.
PMC members may retire from the PMC and change to the status of emeritus PMC by request. An emeritus PMC can request to be reinstated as a PMC member. This does not require a vote. PMC members, including the PMC chair, may be removed from the PMC by a majority vote of the PMC. Removed PMC members can subsequently be nominated as candidates and voted in to the PMC like any other Apache committer.
The PMC chair may retire from the role of PMC chair without retiring from the PMC. When the PMC chair retires from that role, the PMC choses a new chair.
Changes to the PMC require due notice to the Apache Board. The PMC chair informs the board of the change via mail. Acknowledgement of the mail by a director starts a 72 hour period, after which the change becomes effective and committee-info.txt is updated. Thus, retirement and reinstatement are subject to 72 hour delays. Changes to the role of PMC chair are typically handled by a resolution that is approved at the next board meeting.
Decisions by the Project Management Committee (PMC) are made on behalf of the ASF and must satisfy formal requirements. PMC decisions are established by Binary Voting. Discussions for finding a consensus on the decision are expected to take place prior to the voting. The voting is necessary to formally record the decision. Discussions and voting should take place on the public project mailing lists. Where public discussion of a topic is not appropriate, the private mailing list is used instead.
PMC decisions include, but are not limited to:
Binary Voting allows only for the votes +1 (approval) and -1 (objection). An objection must include the reason, otherwise it is counted as invalid. There are consensus decisions and majority decisions. A consensus decision passes if there is a minimum of three binding +1 votes and no binding -1 vote. A majority decision passes if there is a minimum of three binding +1 votes and at least 75% of the binding votes are +1. For PMC decisions, only the votes of the PMC members are binding. All community members are encouraged to vote on public PMC decisions, to display the community support for or concern about the decision. All votes, binding and non-binding, will be recorded in the result mail.
All PMC decisions are consensus decisions, with the following exceptions. Removing a PMC member from the PMC is a majority decision. If it is deemed necessary to break a stalemate, the PMC can decide by majority that one specific decision shall be voted on as a majority rather than a consensus decision. Necessity to fall back to either of these majority decision rules would indicate a serious community problem within the PMC.
A week is deemed a fair length for voting on a PMC decision. For technical decisions such as approving release artifacts, the voting period can be reduced to no less than 72 hours. The length of the voting period for PMC decisions must be indicated in the mail that starts the voting.
Community decisions are consensus driven. The preferred way to establish consensus is through discussion on the public mailing lists. To gather additional input from community members, polls can be run on the same or other mailing lists. Voting on community decisions should be restricted to cases where it is necessary or desirable to formally record the consensus, for example when a long-term project plan is approved. Discussions and voting must take place on the public project mailing lists.
Community Voting is non-binary, typical vote values are:
There are consensus decisions and majority decisions. A consensus decision passes if there is a minimum of three binding +1 votes and no binding -1 vote. A majority decision passes if there is a minimum of three binding +1 votes and more than 50% of the binding votes are +1. For community decisions, only the votes of the project committers are binding. All community members are encouraged to vote on community decisions, to display the community support for or concern about the decision. All votes, binding and non-binding, will be recorded in the result mail. If there is strong opposition from non-binding voters, a decision will be reconsidered even if it formally passes.
As a rule of thumb, "If" questions are consensus decisions while "How" and "When" questions are majority decisions. For example, it is a consensus decision if a new feature should be implemented. It is a majority decision how an issue in the code should be solved, or when the next release of a deliverable will be cut. If it is not clear and cannot be established by discussion whether a decision should be by consensus or majority, the PMC chooses the kind of decision to make. The preference is for consensus decisions.
Community Voting is of an informal nature. Depending on the subject of the voting, some of the vote values may be omitted. There may also be multiple options with the same value to choose from, or additional room for comments, or other modifications. For example, a vote on creating a new mailing list may include a field for the preferred mailing list name, or multiple +1 options for the name candidates discussed prior to the vote. The occasional fractional vote, like -0.9 or +10, is rounded towards 0.
Even if only vote values +1 and -1 are offered, Community Voting differs from PMC Binary Voting in the required vote result for majority decisions (50% vs. 75%) and in the group of binding voters (committers vs. PMC members). All mails to start a voting must therefore point out which votes will be binding.
A week is deemed a fair length for voting on community decisions. Depending on the subject and community involvement during the discussion, the voting period may be reduced to no less than 72 hours, extended beyond one week, extended while the vote is running, or left open. Remember that community voting is informal. We prefer common sense over formalities.
A binding vote of -1 on a consensus decision is also called a veto. Additional discussions and actions to address the reason for the veto are expected. When this is achieved, the veto will be withdrawn or changed to an approval. If concerns cannot be addressed within the voting period, the voting should be repeated after the issues have been resolved.
A non-binding vote of -1 is not a veto. However, it is evaluated based on the merits of the reason given in the vote. If possible, the reason will be addressed within the voting period or afterwards.
Note that committers and PMC members typically have an in-depth knowledge of the project and long experience in running projects at Apache. They may be aware of facts or requirements that are unknown to the community at large. This is the reason why vetos are given more weight than non-binding -1 votes.
We use version numbers with two or three digits and labels alpha, beta, RC. The version numbers are used as follows:
Development of major and minor versions typically passes through the following phases:
In the alpha phase, functionality is implemented and the API drafted. When the API has stabilized and covers the intended functionality for the next major or minor version, the API is frozen and development moves to the beta phase.
In the beta phase, the implementation is stabilized by improving the test coverage and refining the API specification. Compatible API changes are still expected. If significant problems with the API are uncovered, incompatible changes can be introduced with a deprecation cycle. That means that there is at least one compatible beta release in which parts of the API are marked as deprecated. The deprecated parts of the API can then be removed in a subsequent release.
The RC (release candidate) phase starts when the developers consider the codebase stable and mature. The API is kept stable, even compatible enhancements will be minimized. Activity during the RC phase is focused on improving the documentation and test coverage. If some major or many minor bugs are detected, these are fixed in a new RC release.
The final release of a major or minor version is published if bug reports for the RC releases are ebbing away. While the previous releases include the alpha, beta, or RC label in their name, a final release is published with the two digit version number without a suffix. The final release is moved to a branch in the source repository for maintenance. Bugs are fixed for that version in compatible bugfix releases off the branch. Issues that require an API change can only be addressed in the next minor or major version, which is developed on the trunk.
The two styles for code review at Apache are review-then-commit (RTC) and commit-then-review (CTR). Not only the program code is reviewed, but also the contents of the website and the Wiki.
With RTC, a patch is published in the issue tracker, then reviewed by the developers, and committed to the source repository only afterwards. Lazy consensus is sufficient, there is no need for formal voting or three opinions in favor.
With CTR, a change is committed to the source repository directly. Developers receive the change notification on the commits mailing list and review the repository contents. If there is a major problem with the change, any committer can veto the change by sending a -1 reply to the commit message. After a veto, the change is reverted as soon as possible in the source repository and the reason for the veto will be discussed. Minor problems are not handled with a veto and revert, but by discussion on the mailing list and followup patches.
We use both RTC and CTR, and common sense to decide between the two. Some simple rules are: