> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
<snip/> > Here is my soapbox pitch - two main things I'm concerned about > > (a) Both Leo's and Berin's text took the position that if > anything was > wrong with what we put in place - the auto fallback is ASF > procedures - > I see faults in this - firstly - there are no ASF fallback > procedure - > and secondly - the very notion of falling back implies a lack of > confidence in our own procedures. At the end of the day the _only_ > fallback is the board. Our responsibility is to get this > right so that > there is not need to consider a fallback - and to go beyond > that a state > as such - i.e. an Avalon PMC decision is definitive - subject > only to a > Board decision to overrule. I saw the comment and I liked it. The point is this: we live as a sub project of the greater Apache community. If the ASF board addresses something in our charter/guidelines that is contradictory to declared procedure or a board resolution, we need to make it clear that the ASF position wins. Should we correct the text as quickly as possible? Sure. However, in the short term where there might be some confusion, we have already stated that we recognize the ASF board as a greater authority. That is all. > (b) The second concern is something more personal and I don't have > immediate recommendations - but the issue is something I > imagine is of > concern to Pete just as it is to me. The issue is about > "closure". Ok, a > while back there was some flack between Pete and myself. There were > accusations made and stuff thrown about - problem was (and > remains) that > the process was never closed. It's one of the reasons why I'm > outwardly > hostile relative to Pete (Pete has never withdrawn his > accusation and no > authority has recognized or endorsed my position) - so it > doesn't matter > what anyone says - the past is the present. Accusation have been made > but have not been closed (positively or negatively) by the > Jakarta PMC > or the Board. I'm bringing this up because we need to make > sure that we > don't make the same mistakes within the scope of the Avalon > PMC. If we > are faced with a similar situation - we have a responsibility > to close > issues that are put before us. I recognize that this maybe something > that needs to be dealt with after sorting out basic voting policies - > but its something I consider to be very important and central to the > notion of the PMC acting responsibly in the face of difficult > situations. I understand the concern. However our current understanding of the PMC voting procedures do not allow the past to repeat itself. I understand that the wounds are still sore, but also keep in mind that if we ever have to deal with a similar issue again in the future we have an overseeing group now with Avalon's good in mind. We all hope we will never come across this type of problem again. None of the proposed documents have anything that would allow for the same issue to come up again as relating to the PMC. > In effect - this is the PMC taking responsibility for being > responsible. There is a lot to sort out. Patience is imperitive. To encourage you, the tone of this posting was much improved over the ones earlier. If you keep communicating in this thoughtful and provocative manner then we can get through it that much quicker. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
