avalon-phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Avalon voting process
Date Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:01:41 GMT


Berin Loritsch wrote:

>I propose that we follow the voting process outlined
>by Incubator.  
>

It looks good in terms of committer procedures.
A lot of the loose ends are getting cleaned up.

>It is standard across all the projects
>I have seen.  It addresses voting process of the community
>at large, but does not address the voting process of
>the PMC.
>

Correct.

>
>I still have yet to see other charters besides the XML
>one, and voting guidelines do not constitute a charter.
>I suggest that changes to the charter and voting guidelines
>be treated as code changes, with the stipulation that only
>PMC votes are binding.  
>

-1

NO, NO, NO, NO.

Berin:

Please throw out this idea of introducing the potential for deadlock - 
just get it out of your mind. While I am confident that we will reach a 
good solution just working on the standing majority rules procedures 
under the PMC - please don't keep poluting this with notions that set 
precedence of no-majority opinion. Your comment about treating these 
subjects as code implicitly introduces the potential for veto - and drag 
us back to a potential environment of unresolved issues. Maybe you have 
not had to put up with this - but let me be real clear - if the Avalon 
PMC procedures introduce anything that have the potential to block a 
qualified majority (i.e. two-thirds) on what and who we are - and simple 
majority on the rest of the things we have to deal with - then you, I, 
and the rest of us have learnt NOTHING from the recent past.

I WILL PUT UP WITH THAT SORT OF RUBBISH AGAIN.

NOT EVER - NEVER.

>That allows a PMC member to veto
>a change with proper justification.  
>

Incorrect - any justification - feeble, profound, fantasy, etc. and 
nothing to fallback on. We have today a majority voting process. We can 
change that thought a majority vote. That's it - there are no other 
rules applicable here. Please - just use the structure we have and don't 
imply anything different with a PMC vote.


>Proper justification
>should also have a counter-proposal so that the rest of
>the PMC knows *how* to rectify the situation.
>

Just image for a moment that I really object to something (like your 
ideas about voting on the PMC). And lets assume that your model is in 
place. And lets assume that you and I disagree on something similar. And 
lets assume that my arguments and your arguments are both well prepared 
and rationale. Your solution creates a deadlock - you have destroyed the 
intrinsic value of the PMC - and that it be able to do things when such 
need arrives. You don't need to look very far back into Avalon history 
to see evidence of this. I'm not ready to bet the form on that not 
happening again.

Today - we have a majority rules on the PMC.

In the meantime - please not more assertions of what rules apply - there 
are rules already in place. Lets focus on charter - not procedure - and 
drop any discussion about policy to apply with result to charter or 
policy evolution. It simple - a majority of the PMC voter to change the 
charter - the change gets escalated to the Board, the board does it 
stuff. If that's no ok - then raise a vote on the PMC list.

----------ooo0ooo-----------

You may sense a certain aggression/frustration here. That is brought 
about by the inability of this community to deal with the problems back 
in July/August - it was complicated by the inability of the Jakarta PMC 
to address the issue. Even the board didn't address the issue on the 
table at the time. Nobody took a position - not structure in the entire 
Apache organization was willing to step in with a closure. Yes - Pete 
got kicked - but that wasn't the subject of the Jakarta/Board discussion 
before - that was probably more of a surprise to me than to any of you. 
What I do know is that those types issues MUST be address by the Avalon 
PMC. If you continue along the lines your describing - your just 
creating the comfortable environment where you simply isolate yourself 
away from the potential of having to take a difficult decision.

As a PMC member - I REFUSE to let a similar situation arise for other 
members of the community. I will do everything I can to ensure that the 
PMC is an instrument that has balls and ability. And I'm confident that 
providing those attributes are held up with respect - that we will never 
need to use them. Today the PMC has balls - please don't try to take 
that away. Its abilities will evolve through attention and consideration 
to the charter and procedures, and progressively, through respect from a 
united community.


Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message