avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2002 09:09:39 GMT


Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal 
>> relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.  Please not that 
>> this does not address lots of things - but that's the point - it is 
>> only dealing with the procedures concerning decion making.  The 
>> interntion is to put this up for commmunity vote and a subsequent PMC 
>> vote.  For PMC members it is important to note that this text is 
>> chnging the voting rights that you have today - so please ready 
>> carefully. Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>
>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>>
>> Definitions
>> ----------
>>
>> Definition 1. PMC
>>
>>   All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
>>   the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
>>   accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
>>   20 November 2002 as detailed with the following document or
>>   amendments adopted in accordance with the procedures herein
>>   defined.
>>
>>   http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
>>
>> Definition 2. PMC Membership
>>
>>   The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
>>   resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
>
>
> This reflects the present but fails to indicate directions for the 
> future. Say, how can somebody come in or go out of a PMC? 


This is only addressing the P&P for how decisions are made.
It is not the end-game - just the step on agreeing how top agree.

>
>
>> Definition 3. PMC Chair
>>
>>   A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
>>   by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC and the
>>   broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined under
>>   the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
>
>
> Again, this reflects the present, but not the future. I propose to 
> have the chair elected every 6 months.


Again - that's a seperate subject that needs to be dealt with but can be 
considered indepedently of the subject of rules for agreement.

>
>> Definition 3. PMC Charter
>>
>>   The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
>>   resolution as detailed under definition [1]. 
>
>
>> Definition 4. Normal Vote
>>
>>   Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
>>   of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
>>
>> Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
>>
>>   A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
>>
>>   (a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
>>       by definition [3].
>>
>>   (b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
>>       established hereunder.
>
>
>
>> PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
>>
>>   (a) Preconditions to Voting
>>
>>       A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
>>       initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
>>       tag with the message title.  Proposal resulting in the
>>       establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
>>       commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag.  The PMC Chair may disallow
>>       a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>>       provided.  PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
>>       binding on the PMC members.
>
>
> Nah, a PMC chair shoudn't even be noticed as a chair, but as a 
> secretary. It should be as hidden as possible. I don't think we need 
> this, it's a call for making chairs appear rude.
>
> There is never a need to disallow a vote.
>
> I'm pretty strong on this: I would like the PMC chair to be as simple 
> and transparent as possible.


I think the last couple of sentences could be reworked - these is 
plently of evidence of badly formed votes that lead to 
missunderstandings - and people launching votes within properly 
declaring them as such. These are exactly the sort of things real chairs 
do. Working suggestions apreciated - I'll thinnk about it as well.

>
>>   (b) Quorum Calculations
>>
>>       Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
>>       less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
>>       nearest non-fractional number).
>>
>>   (c) Normal Majority Vote
>>
>>       A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
>>       by definition [4] shall require a 50% majority before the vote
>>       may be considered as binding, shall be subject to the quorum
>>       calculations as defined under Article 1 (b), vote duration
>>       as defined by Article 1 (e), and validity shall be subject to
>>       reasonable engagement towards actions as defined under the
>>       voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the notion of
>>       reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
>
>
> Again, we don't need the chair to do anything. Let's cut the legal 
> crap as much possible. and let's remove potential friction points.


Don;t see a problem changing this.

>
>>   (d) Qualified Majority Vote
>>
>>       A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
>>       as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
>>       (rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
>>       may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
>>
>>   (e) Vote Duration
>>
>>       Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
>>       initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
>>       Article 1 (b).  A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
>>       day period shall default to a 14 day duration.  On expiration of
>>       a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
>>       vote shall be consider as s failed vote.
>
>
> I agree with Paul's vision that 'within' is bad. I see this already 
> patched in a later version so I'm cool with this.
>
>>   (f) Post-conditions to Voting
>>
>>       A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
>>       email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
>>       the message title.  The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
>>       final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
>>       result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
>>       shall render the vote null and void.
>
>
> Again, no need for all this bureucratic stuff. When the vote is over, 
> somebody will post the count (not only the chair can count, hopefully) 
> and tell me, are you really going to wait 60 days before asking what's 
> going on?


Already removed.

>
> As I said previously, let's write the smallest possible thing that can 
> possibly make sense. And let the chair be perceived as just another 
> member with no particular power... otherwise you'll have to spend half 
> of your time dissipating the friction that will emerge everytime there 
> is no absolute consensus on the chair election (like right now, for 
> example)
>
I'll put some more time into it later today.

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