On Wednesday 22 December 2004 03:54, Scott Sanders wrote:
> If there is anything wrong
> with the policies and procedures of the ASF, it is that Avalon was not
> shut down in 2001 or before.  

I have spent most of the evening reading mails pre-Avalon TLP and especially 
the period around the TLP was formed, and I must agree the Scott. It was 
infected way back.

> I would 'commend and applaud' your acceptance that there is an equal and
> opposite viewpoint to yours on this issue.  

That has been identified and is acknowledged. I am now asking the question 
that there is a disparity between the way Greg explains how it works and the 
way projects operates. I have for instance brought up the PMC ByLaws issue, 
which doesn't exist but many projects have.

> I also believe that the
> multiple opinions out there cannot be reconciled.  I am willing to let
> it go at that, as there is no clear direction forward, since forward has
> a dozen meanings in this context. So why don't we drop it?

I have dropped "Avalon" out of the picture, that is history. I learned that 
being a member of the PMC is not necessarily what you think it is. Why not 
make the roles clear? Why not make sure that PMCs who has ByLaws, take those 
down and replace with "Operational Procedures and Practices", which 
accurately describes the chain of command that *are* in place at project 
level, but barely mentioned anywhere?
Why not make sure that no more TLPs are created with a boiler text, speaking 
of these project bylaws?

If everyone thinks this is at all not necessary, then fine do nothing about 
it, let the descrepancy continue to exist, and I'll predict similar problems 
sooner, rather than later, in the future.

  / http://www.dpml.net       /
 / http://niclas.hedhman.org / 

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

Reply via email to