Berin Loritsch wrote:
I propose that we follow the voting process outlined
by Incubator.
It looks good in terms of committer procedures. A lot of the loose ends are getting cleaned up.
It is standard across all the projects I have seen. It addresses voting process of the community at large, but does not address the voting process of the PMC.
Correct.
I still have yet to see other charters besides the XML
one, and voting guidelines do not constitute a charter.
I suggest that changes to the charter and voting guidelines
be treated as code changes, with the stipulation that only
PMC votes are binding.
-1
NO, NO, NO, NO.
Berin:
Please throw out this idea of introducing the potential for deadlock - just get it out of your mind. While I am confident that we will reach a good solution just working on the standing majority rules procedures under the PMC - please don't keep poluting this with notions that set precedence of no-majority opinion. Your comment about treating these subjects as code implicitly introduces the potential for veto - and drag us back to a potential environment of unresolved issues. Maybe you have not had to put up with this - but let me be real clear - if the Avalon PMC procedures introduce anything that have the potential to block a qualified majority (i.e. two-thirds) on what and who we are - and simple majority on the rest of the things we have to deal with - then you, I, and the rest of us have learnt NOTHING from the recent past.
I WILL PUT UP WITH THAT SORT OF RUBBISH AGAIN.
NOT EVER - NEVER.
That allows a PMC member to veto
a change with proper justification.
Incorrect - any justification - feeble, profound, fantasy, etc. and nothing to fallback on. We have today a majority voting process. We can change that thought a majority vote. That's it - there are no other rules applicable here. Please - just use the structure we have and don't imply anything different with a PMC vote.
Proper justification should also have a counter-proposal so that the rest of the PMC knows *how* to rectify the situation.
Just image for a moment that I really object to something (like your ideas about voting on the PMC). And lets assume that your model is in place. And lets assume that you and I disagree on something similar. And lets assume that my arguments and your arguments are both well prepared and rationale. Your solution creates a deadlock - you have destroyed the intrinsic value of the PMC - and that it be able to do things when such need arrives. You don't need to look very far back into Avalon history to see evidence of this. I'm not ready to bet the form on that not happening again.
Today - we have a majority rules on the PMC.
In the meantime - please not more assertions of what rules apply - there are rules already in place. Lets focus on charter - not procedure - and drop any discussion about policy to apply with result to charter or policy evolution. It simple - a majority of the PMC voter to change the charter - the change gets escalated to the Board, the board does it stuff. If that's no ok - then raise a vote on the PMC list.
----------ooo0ooo-----------
You may sense a certain aggression/frustration here. That is brought about by the inability of this community to deal with the problems back in July/August - it was complicated by the inability of the Jakarta PMC to address the issue. Even the board didn't address the issue on the table at the time. Nobody took a position - not structure in the entire Apache organization was willing to step in with a closure. Yes - Pete got kicked - but that wasn't the subject of the Jakarta/Board discussion before - that was probably more of a surprise to me than to any of you. What I do know is that those types issues MUST be address by the Avalon PMC. If you continue along the lines your describing - your just creating the comfortable environment where you simply isolate yourself away from the potential of having to take a difficult decision.
As a PMC member - I REFUSE to let a similar situation arise for other members of the community. I will do everything I can to ensure that the PMC is an instrument that has balls and ability. And I'm confident that providing those attributes are held up with respect - that we will never need to use them. Today the PMC has balls - please don't try to take that away. Its abilities will evolve through attention and consideration to the charter and procedures, and progressively, through respect from a united community.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
