avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Sutic" <leo.su...@inspireinfrastructure.com>
Subject PMC Voting Process
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:03:07 GMT

let's have another go at it. I think all of us agree as to what a 
vote should be, and I think that there is consensus about 90%
of this.

So, let's go through everything that's been put on the table,
see where we agree (90% of everything) and see if the remaining
10% are issues that can be resolved.


Reading through the proposals, I can only say that they describe the
same process, although in different words. For the record, here
are two of them:

    Leo Simons's:


Unfortunately I have not been able to find Berin's text at
marc.theaimsgroup.com. Berin, could you provide a link?
Also, I hop I have the latest versions of both

Basically, a vote is this, from a voter's perspective:

 1. A thread marked [VOTE] pops up. I have seven days to cast my 

 2. I cast the vote (+1, +0, -0, -1). 

 3. When the voting period is over, a thread marked [VOTE-RESULT] 
    (or somesuch) will tell me how it went (accepted, rejected).

I think there is consensus on the above process.



I see no issues other than the question of how the process is
described. For the purpose of being able to refer to them,
I'll refer to the approaches as "strict" or "layman", with Stephen's
being the strict version, and Leo's being the layman version. I
don't think anyone will be confused by the labels.


The layman version emphasizes a "fast and loose" approach. Many
terms and concepts are not defined, instead it is assumed that
the reader/voter already understands them, and that the voter's
understanding of the terms are in line with - for want of a better
description - the collective mind of Avalon. The goal is that the
process should be easily and intuitively graspable by anyone,
and that one should not get bogged down in details.


The strict version emphasizes correctness and precision. The goal is
that the voting process should be completely described, and that
a reader should not have to have access to the collective mind of
Avalon in order to understand how a vote happens. It is also designed
to handle the case where someone's understanding isn't in line
with Avalon - to put it simply, any disagreements on voting process
should be solved by reading the text, thus avoiding costly
arguments on how the vote should be done that often bloom into
somewhat unpleasant disagreements.


OK, so can these two be reconciled? I think so. But before I start
with that, I'd like to pose a few questions:

1. Do I have the latest documents referred to in the beginning?

2. Is my understanding that the actual process described by the
   proposals are equivalent correct? That is, are we only arguing 
   over how the process is written down, or is there any 
   disagreement as to the process itself?

3. Am I correct in my description of the goal of the layman version?

4. Am I correct in my description of the goal of the strict version?
   Especially, the assertion that the purpose of the strict-ness
   is to be able to resolve disagreements by looking in the text?


Finally, a few notes:

If you let me, I intend to run this discussion as I ran the
"Context Consensus" thread(s). That means: 

 + Regular summaries of all viewpoints

 + A long period where we keep this as a regular thread,
   a while as a proposal, and finally a vote that should be nothing
   more than a formality.


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

View raw message