Niall Pemberton wrote:
For the record I agree with Martin and in my book votes-are-votes
whoever they come from.
Well, I'm reading the bylaws right now:
http://struts.apache.org/dev/bylaws.html
...and a couple of things stand out to me:
(1) It is specifically stated that the act of voting carries certain
obligations. Good.
(2) Much to my surprise, it does NOT seem to say that binding votes are
counted any differently than non-binding votes, only that binding votes
are cast by PMC Members, nor does it limit the obligation clause to
binding votes.
(3) +/-0 means no opinion, it doesn't mean "release is good but I will
not/cannot support it".
There are some contradictions and potential problems contained within
these bylaws as they are currently written given these points, and they
should IMO be addressed.
(1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that
non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently:
"3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to whether
a action passes or not. It doesn't say "3 +1 votes from anyone", nor
does it say "no vetos from anyone", it specifically spells out binding
votes. Non-binding votes are not officially considered in other words.
So, the bylaws pretty clearly make a differentiation between binding
and non-binding votes, regardless of what's in your book :).
Is anyone comfortable saying that non-committers/non-PMC members can
veto a release? I would think not, and therefore votes are NOT votes.
If everyone IS comfortable saying that, then great, I'm all for it, just
spell it out properly in the bylaws.
(2) Martin earlier contended that a PMC member should vote +0 if they
think the release should go but they do not intend or are unable to
support it. The bylaws say otherwise. They effectively say that ANY
vote carries the implication of "..agreeing to help do the work", which
has to include support because there's no limited definition of "the
work". This is true because this sentence:
"The act of voting carries certain obligations. Voters are not only
stating their opinion, they are also agreeing to help do the work."
...applies to ALL vote types (it doesn't say otherwise), and it is not
overridden in the definition of what each vote type means in the table
below it. Maybe some think that "do the work" only means apply the
patches and roll the release, but then that leaves support undefined,
which isn't good.
(3) There is an obligation on the part of ALL voters, that's clearly
stated. Let me be clear: I for one am OK with that, *IF* it's actually
the intent. But, if I had understood that before, I wouldn't have voted
+1 all those times frankly because as a non-project member I would not
have accepted any "obligation". I would have as a committer, but not as
an anonymous community member. I wonder how many non-members have voted
over the years and not understood they were accepting an "obligation"?
I seriously doubt everyone did.
I think these bylaws need to be clearer. It "votes are votes", as Niall
says, that's great, but let's make it crystal clear. If there's no
implied obligation of a +1 vote, as Martin contends, so be it, let's
make that crystal clear too.
Niall
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
