Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 25413 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 13:13:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 14339 invoked by uid 97); 4 Dec 2002 13:14:21 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14323 invoked by uid 97); 4 Dec 2002 13:14:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14299 invoked by uid 98); 4 Dec 2002 13:14:20 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Reply-To: From: "Berin Loritsch" To: "'Avalon Developers List'" Subject: RE: Charter.txt Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:13:30 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c29b96$f163bb80$2100a8c0@acsdom1.citius.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3DEDE3DB.5020203@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:16 AM > To: Avalon Developers List > Subject: Re: Charter.txt > > > > > Peter Donald wrote: > > >On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:59, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > > > >>Stephen has already made clear his dislike of the word "unanimous", > >>but before we blindly remove that word, we need to come to community > >>consensus. > >> > >> > > > >I am +1 on unanimous because it forces consensus for forward > motion. It may > >mean things take longer to get decided but usually the > decisions are better > >for it. > > > > And thereby grant the right to a single individual to block progress. > That takes away the ability of the PMC to function. If when you take > away it ability to function you have taken away its ability > to represent > the comunity and its ability to meet its obligations to the board. Steve, your fears are duly noted. Keep in mind that it is the PMC that must be unanimous--not the general committer populus. I am sure that people who have a proven track record of being able to work with others can come to agreement. I am also sure that unanimous has to work any time there is a legal issue at stake. Remember PMC does not make technical decisions so there is unlikely to be an undue amount of blocking--and never for frivolent reasons. PMC is responsible to oversee the legal aspects of this community. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: