Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 20474 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 18:29:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 18:29:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 9554 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2002 18:30:01 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 9454 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2002 18:30:00 -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 9425 invoked by uid 98); 6 Dec 2002 18:29:59 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Reply-To: From: "Berin Loritsch" To: "'Avalon Developers List'" Subject: RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:29:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001201c29d55$6609e260$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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <3DF0E8C0.3060403@apache.org> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Overall this is very good, and quite steeped in "legalese". Nevertheless, there are a couple of minor tweaks I have. > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org] > (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. The definition of majority means more than 50%. Strictly speaking, 50% means deadlock. It should read "shall require greater than 50% majority" or "shall require 51% majority". > (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. ^^^ "as a failed vote" > (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. Generally speaking, I like the post-condition. However it leaves too much open for the Chair not doing his job. For instance, if all PMC members except the chair voted for a proposal and the chair voted against the proposal, all he would have to do is sit on the results for 60 days to make the proposal void. I would put the responsibility on the PMC as a whole instead of merely one person. It puts the power back into the community--preserving a certain balance of power. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: