Leo Sutic wrote:
And just so I understand, where does this authority to represent the interests and opinions of the Avalon team as a whole come from?Just as a matter of curiosity, whom are you representing under theThe Avalon team as a whole.
term *we*?
The vote that made Berin Chair. He's not "just a committer", although it is in line with most leadership training to act as if it were that way.
I view things a little differently - Berin is just a committer (you you or I) but has been landed with the unfortunate overhead of having to prepare reports for the Apache Board so that the lads at the top know what the kids on the street are getting up to. Its not about leadership - its about upstream reporting.
Remember that the Chair is a "benevolent dictator"?
I dreadfully sorry - it seems that I may have been completely mistaken. I thought that the PMC Chair was elected with the job of representing this community to the Apache Board based on the decisions of this community. I was totally unaware of the "benevolent dictator" thing - it certainly wasn't included in the wording of neither motion nor adopted procedures. If there is something that actually gives the chair the right to act in manner outside of or in contradiction with the decisions of the community then please could you post the details to list? I’m sure others would be interested in reading this.
But that's not how it is being used now. The line that started it was:
No it isn't. If you recall I had two objections before we could release Merlin.
OK, so Berin has two objections before he thinks it is OK for the Avalon
Community to release Merlin.
Your interpretation clarifies a lot of things. Perhaps we could apply a little more manipulation and end up with something like this:
"No it isn't. If you recall I had two objections before [I would endorse a community vote to release Merlin]."
Now that would eliminate the pretension of preemptive representation.
I see nothing that implies a position of
authority here that is above the authority of a committer.
I agree - your modifed version correctly repositions the statement as a personal observation.
As committers we *are* responsible for releases.
Correct.
This is both a moral
and a legal thing. If a committer thinks that he can't sign off on a release (which he is responsible for due to being committer) then he
has all the right in the world to raise the issues that prevents a sign-
off.
Correct - as far as that individual committer is concerned. But that does not imply that an individuals opinion is in any way representative of the community. That's what votes are for.
Get those two issues on the table (they already are) and get on with solving them.
This presupposes that they are in fact issues. One so-called issue is in fact an issue with the AMTAGS spec which is in the process of being addressed. The other so-called issue is an issue from the personal point of view of Berin and conflicts with what I consider to be a more pragmatic and user driven position that I have put forward and that has received positive support from other committers.
As such, one of these is a topic related to development of the AMTAGS spec - the other is a subject under discussion.
Frankly, unless issues with Merlin can be solved in a civil manner
(and at the moment that appears to be too much to ask), I see no reason to release Merlin as an Avalon product, as it is clear that
Merlin and its author isn't part of the Avalon community other than in a very formal way (it is hosted on Apache servers and you have
committ privs).
Well, I sorry you feel that way - but don't worry, I'm sure you'll feel better in morning.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
