avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PMC:VOTE] PMC Voting Process
Date Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:54:12 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>> I hereby propose we adopt the text below as a our voting guidelines, 
>> add these guidelines to the avalon project documentation, to 
>> completely replace the current (invalid) procedures and policies which 
>> were voted upon under the thread "[VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and 
>> Procedures" on the avalon pmc list.
>>
>> I believe the proposal lays down in clear simple wording the actual 
>> de-facto practices followed.
>>
>> I volunteer to administer the vote, add up the results and notify the 
>> community, and put the document up on the website if it is accepted 
>> (ie do as described in the proposed text).
>>
>> Note that although this is a PMC vote everyone is welcome to comment.
>>
>> PMC members, please cast your votes (on the avalon development list).
>>
>> here's mine: +1. 
> 
> And here is my -1
> 
> :-)

I forgot to mention for people wondering: this counts as a "qualified 
majority vote", ie 2/3s of votes should be +1. Steve's -1 is not a veto. 
(And he has the option to change it for at least a week!)

> We have voted on something that describes a set of procedures.  The vote 
> has passed and has established the framework for how we modify those 
> procedures.  Sure you can propose a replacement of those procedures (as 
> opposed to moving forward to address a couple of points raised at the 
> end of last year). What is import to remember is that the procedures 
> that we have adopted are very explicit about what we think things are 
> (right or wrong - they correctly represented what we thought was right). 
> Through that process and explicit description Greg picked up on our 
> missrenterpritation of the defintion of the chair.  He also picked up an 
> issue concerning an apparent missinterpritation of the chairs rights - 
> which in fact turn out to be an issue to do with the Board minutes - 
> identifiable because both out procedures and the board procedures are 
> using wording that is specific about terms.

All true.

>  Yes - placing a set of 
> procedures into natural langue makes it easier to ready on a Sunday 
> afternoon with a class a Chablis - but when something becomes a point of 
> issue (forget about legal - just think about us and Avalon when we an 
> order of magnitude bigger than today) then your will be really grateful 
> for text that is explict about definitions and processes.

I think the text I propose is perfectly explicit about "processes". If 
you do not, could you be more specific?

While that text may be less explicit about "definitions", it is hence 
also not in conflict with definitions made elsewhere. I am questioning 
our ability to provide "conflictless explicit definitions", in fact I 
doubt it is possible at all.

I am also sincerely questioning the need for explicit definition of both 
definition and process.

Here's my reasoning: what we need is clarity and transparency with 
regard to our process (to avoid conflict or be able to resolve it and to 
explain to outsiders/newcomers), and I really do believe simply worded 
prose is more effective in that regard than formally worded legalese, 
simply because formal wording confuses many people, thus removing 
clarity and transparency, replacing it with confusion.

In Greg's words: "Think about any other company on the planet. Do they 
codify their operations to [the level of the current process document as 
voted and accepted upon in december]? Nope. Not at all."

> This does not negate the need and utility of supporting explanitory text 
> - but the latter is not equivalent to the former.

I believe it should be exactly the same. Why do you not?

> Wording such as "invalid" is missleading - heck, based on this guideline 
> the last board meeting of ASF is invalid - should be conssider that to 
> be null and void as well ? 

I believe the proper thing to do is to replace or redo the vital points 
of that board meeting so that the argument becomes irrelevant, ie to 
provide a rectification. I believe that is the board's plan, it's mine 
too. Not very important for the discussion though. And I do not need to 
know because I'm not on the board :D

However, I'll happily take back my use of the word "invalid" as it 
doesn't matter that much...I'd like to hereby rectify something: my use 
of the word "invalid" in my previous e-mail on this subject was invalid 
and it should be disregarded.

> I don't think so.  If you wnat make changes - an yes, some changes are 
> needed - then I would like suggest that we work within the scope of what 
> has been established both in context and process.

I think the proposed text is perfectly in scope of what has been 
established in context and process, so I think I'm following up with 
your suggestion.

The prime reason you gave previously was the legal argument, which I 
took for granted (IANAL), but one thing I understood from Greg's answers 
to some of my questions is that that argument is most likely moot. Based 
on that I re-evaluated the need for formalism, and came to the 
conclusion that

a) it is totally unneeded and has negative side effects (see above);

b) making some changes to the text I whipped up earlier while drafting 
the original proposal, and then proposing that as a replacement was 
easier than making changes to the formal thing (for me and I suspect the 
majority of people), and has added positive benefit.

Steve, it's got nothing to do with our differing taste in wine, but I 
think you like formalism and process to much for your own or the common 
good :)

greetz!

- 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