Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:I can probably be talked into this. And towards this end - the biggest issue I have
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.
hey Steve,
Morning Leo! :-)
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.
Hey I'm not disagreeing.
(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.
Forget about overruling - thing about the context of Avalon PMC is a specialization of AFC.
public Decision vote( Issue issue )
{
try
{
return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY );
}
catch( Throwable e )
{
return super.vote( proposal );
}
}
Problem with the above is that you will get a compile time error - there is no generic supertime mechanisms to fallback too - a.k.a. NoSuchMethodException.
Instead what you need is explicit semantics:
public Decision vote( Issue issue )
{
try
{
return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY );
}
catch( ScopeException e )
{
throw new PMCException( "Issue is outside of PMC scope" );
}
catch( ProceduralException e )
{
Context context = board.getContext( issue, PMC_POLICY );
if( context != null )
{
return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY, context );
}
else
{
final String result =
"Resolution cannot be achived within the context of the
current PMC procedues. Direct interaction with the ASF
Board is recommended.";
throw new PMCRuntimeException( result );
}
}
}
Now think bout the above for a moment - either an issue is resolved or it isn't. The process is explicit. It the Avalon PMC doesn't handle something then Avalon PMC explicity defers it the the Board - OR - rejects the issue. And all that is doing is protecting our community from ourselves when the SHTF.
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.
Possible - give me the weekend to go back over tbe text. Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
