Stephen McConnell wrote:
I can probably be talked into this. And towards this end - the biggest issue I havehey Steve,
with the proposed text concerns the introductory statements:
> This document details how the Avalon PMC has agreed to handle
> voting. Note that in the case of any conflict between this
> document and official ASF policy (be it in the form of bylaws,
> board resolutions, ASF officer decisions, or something similar),
> the official ASF policy is always the policy followed.
My problem with the above is that (a) the ASF does not have a voting policy, (b) the paragraph simply introduces unnecessary fuzz - the rational fallbacks are (a) the Chair, or (b) the Board. In discussion to-date, members of the PMC have expressed a reluctance to assign any responsibility to the Chair (even though the Chair is tasked by the Board with the management of the Avalon Project) - but ignoring this anomaly, a fallback to ASF policy is simply saying "if you can find something wrong with Avalon policies then just revent to ASF policies" - and that has two fundamental faults - (a) corresponding ASF policies don't exist, and (b) even if they did, the Avalon policies should take precedence over and above a general ASF policy.
Avalon ASF Officer == Avalon PMC Chair. The Chair is an officer of the Foundation and that's why he needs to overrule -- added responsibility. Not because he "chairs" meetings.
(a) -- true.
(b) -- I don't think a PMC can 'overrule' a board resolution or something like that, nor can project guidelines. So I disagree here.
Greg - can you confirm or refute the above? Leo - do you think we rework the paragraph in question?
sure! We could even drop it completely and I'd still be quite ok.
cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
