avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2002 10:47:50 GMT
On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 07:11, Stephen McConnell wrote: 
> Leo Simons wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >  
> >>Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal 
> >>relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.
> >
> >do we need that? Why?
> >
> 
> Because its less ambiguous.
> 
> Keep in mind that legalistic prose basically the application of SOC on 
> natural language. A reduction in ambiguity comes at the expense of 
> having to work harder to read the document.

SoC huh? Cool. Here's a few concerns: 

concern 1: I would like anyone with a reasonable skill in English to be
able to read all relevant documentation without needing to consult a
dictionary. 

concern 2: I want that documentation to make clear the intention
contained in them (where I understand the intention of our rules is to
roughly maximize on consensus, reaching that consensus in a manner
acceptable to all (based on open discussion and community input etc
etc), and defaulting to "majority of the meritocracy rules" when
consensus is not possible but a resolution is needed) 

concern 3: it is not possible to make any set of rules or guidelines
unambigous without requiring the people who work with them having some
kind of college degree in a relevant field (ie law). PMC nor community
members should be expected to hold such a degree :D

concern 4: I see lots of stuff I am amendable to but that does not also
indicate in the text itself the need it addresses. If I can't see it, I
won't expect others to do so. 

do we all share these concerns?

I have more thoughts but there not getting translated to readable format
very well yet. Posting anyway:

Why would there be a distinct role for the chair at all in the pmc
process? It seems to me the chair only has a different role wrt to
communication (ie with the board) or when things go wrong (and when
things go wrong, the chair has a different role because he is also the
ASF Officer, _not_ because he is the chair, hence the difference is
detailed in ASF bylaws rather than our procedures) 

Why is it neccessary to set lots of things in stone? Ex: The 72 hours
voting period is unofficial (IIUC), a week limit can be as well. I think
it will always be possible to challenge the validity of the voting
process no matter how tight you hammer it down.
The idea is to take away the need to challenge validity. What we need
here is guidelines and consensus to the maximum extend possible, and
formality to the minimum extend possible. The fact that we failed to get
consensus before does not change that. 

just thoughts....

cheers, 

- Leo


--
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