Berin Loritsch wrote:
Generalizing your opinion on this to everyone here at AvalonFrom: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Leo:
There are a couple of points here:
1. The reason that we are discussing revision to the
PMC Voting procedures was initiated because the
current procedures are considered by some as
difficult to read - the subject of this message
concerns a structural change to what is already
adopted. I would prefer that we do not modify
the procedures in this way. If Berin wants see
the potential introduction of a change to the
procedures such that committer votes are
recognized then he should be proposing this a
seperate topic, potentially leading to a vote on
that topic.
The thing is that I have not changed anything that was in my mind from when we ratified the more legalese version. So, in effect we have uncovered a flaw in the more formal version--we agreed on something we did not mean to agree on because it was too difficult to dicern from the text.
who voted is a little missleading. I also think it is a little
off the mark - from the current procedures:
(c) Voting Conventions
Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted to the members of the PMC.
<snip/>
I.e. conclusion - drop the notion of committer votes (in otherThat will happen only if I see a disproportionate amound of traffic
words lets keep this thread about enhancing usibility of the
currently adopted procedures), and leave it to Berin to propose
a well prepared revision in the future (if he feels it is
necessary).
on avalon-pmc vs. avalon-dev. IOW, as long as we keep everyone
in the loop I am ok. We don't need to make it a formal requirement,
at least not at this stage.
Tottaly agreee. Cheers, Steve.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- 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]>
