On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:43:14AM +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 December 2004 11:19, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> > Greg holds to the
> > opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are
> > simply an artificial construct.
> Before anyone is requesting the quote where Steve get that notion from;
> http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-05-15.022554.txt
> which is an IRC session regarding the fork/transfer/something of Phoenix to 
> James, via an SVN import into Avalon's SVN space. Everyone is aware that this 
> IRC session is logged and available to the public (before people hammer for 
> that.).
> Following quotes from Greg Stein (and one McConnell);
> (12:10:11) gstein: mcconnell: aaron *is* the PMC
> ((12:46:05) gstein: the members of the PMC is an artificial construct created 
> by the Chair
> 12:48:15) gstein: mcconnell: the board expects a PMC to operate in a 
> consensus 
> fashion,
> (12:48:38) gstein: but when a PMC *cannot* operate in a consensus fashion, 
> then the Board leaves it to the Chair to figure out the right solution.
> (12:52:47) gstein: if Aaron wants to ask the PMC, then he can.
> (12:57:17) mcconnell: then don't ask aaron for an opinion because aaron has 
> not talked with his PMC MEMBERS
> (12:57:29) gstein: mcconnell: doesn't matter to me. that's up to him.
> In my personal opinion that also seems to suggest that committer and/or PMC 
> vetoes are also of no interest. The PMC Chair is an ultimate decision maker 
> (at least in the view of Greg), who from time to time decides how to deal 
> with disagreements.

You lost a lot of context there. The main thing: I was speaking from
the position of the Board/Director/Chairman. Doesn't matter to me what
is "on the other side of Aaron". From the Board's standpoint, it's all
about Aaron.

And yes, the Chair defines the rules/procedures. And when they fail to
keep the project and community on track, then the Chair can change the
rules. Simple as that.

The Chair is an officer of the corporation in charge of some of our
assets and in charge of the community which cares for those assets. We
expect that officer to look out for the best interests of the ASF. And
if that requires a hard call, then so be it. We *expect* a
consensus-based approach, but when that doesn't work or it fails in
some way, then we *expect* that the Chair will solve it. If a Chair
runs rampantly against either of those expectations, then the Board
will deal with it. That certainly wasn't the case here. Aaron did
well, and I fully support his actions, both personally as a developer
and an ASF Member, and also as a Director of the Board and Chairman of
the ASF.

There have certainly been insinuations in this thread and others that
my positions or stances are "part of the problem." You're certainly
entitled to that point of view, but I'm similarly confident that I
have been acting in the best interests of the ASF in this matter, and
that I have the support of the Membership. I may not have unanimous
support, and I certainly don't in all matters, but in this regard, I
feel pretty good that I've been representing the Members (and, thus,
the ASF) properly.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to