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 Voting Process
Date Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:06:58 GMT


Leo Sutic wrote:

>Stephen,
>
>thanks for the feedback. I'll try to merge your comments into
>the proposal. Just some clarifications:
>
>  
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org] 
>>
>>Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I propose that this text (also available at:
>>>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?AvalonPMCVotingProcedures)
>>>be made the official PMC voting guidelines for Avalon:
>>>
>>>= PMC Voting Procedures =
>>>
>>>This document details how the Avalon PMC has agreed to handle voting. 
>>>Should this document conflict with official ASF policy, please notify 
>>>pmc@avalon.apache.org so that they can make the proper changes.  ASF 
>>>policy will always supercede this document.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The above paragraph needs to be totally 
>>reviwed/replace/rehashed/removed?.
>>
>>   * the Avalon PMC procures are definative
>>   * in the case of any ambiguity or conflict, it becomes an
>>     issue for the chair
>>   * in the case of dispute between a committer and the PMC, the
>>     committer can address the problem to the chair or escalate
>>     the matter to the board
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>>== People Involved in the Voting Process ==
>>>
>>>=== The Proposer ===
>>>
>>>The proposer is the one who comes up with the discussion 
>>>that needs to be addressed.  The proposer will follow the 
>>>procedures listed under the heading "Prior to the Vote".
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It should be noted that a proposer may be any project committer.
>>    
>>
>
>Since you specify this - is it required that the proposer
>be a committer at all? I did some proposals before I got
>committer access - but those were non-PMC type stuff.
> 
>  
>
>>Agree - it negates the necessity for the intro paragraph - but
>>arbitration is the wrong word.  In effect what you want to say that
>>disagreements concerning interpritation of voting my be directed to
>>the Chair.  The Chair's opinion shall be final and binding upon
>>the PMC.
>>    
>>
>
>
>OK, to summarize your comments - the differences are:
>
> 1. Only PMC members may vote. Period.
>

Correct.

>
> 2. The vote (and preceding discussion) may be held on the pmc 
>    list or on the dev list.
>  
>

Correct.

> 3. The "Disagreements" section should be rewritten as:
>
>     Disagreements concerning voting may be directed to
>     the Chair.  The Chair's opinion shall be final and 
>     binding upon the PMC.
>  
>

Correct.

> 4. "Voting requires discussion - but readiness for adoption is 
>    vauge and missleading.  If the chair deems that further 
>    discussion is required before moving to a vote, the chair 
>    should be able to revert a vote to discussion."
>
>    Given that any disagreements may be resolved by the Chair,
>    I believe that the Chair may take the initiative and
>    declare that the vote should be reverted without any other
>    committer asking the chair to do so.
>  
>

I agree.

> 5. -1's need not be motivated.
>  
>

Correct.

> 6. "Procedures should not qualify types of votes."
>    I don't get this - I'll go through Leo's text and see...
>

All I am saying is that the procedures should not attempt to define what 
is or what is not within the scope of the PMC - the PMC is charged with 
overseeing the Avalon Project and as such it needs to deal with whatever 
it needs to deal with to assure that process.  Before anyone jumps on me 
- I am not saying the technical stuff has enything to do with the PMC - 
I only saying that the procedures should not state the process - not the 
content.

>
> 7. PMC votes are limited to changes in two documents - 
>    "Avalon PMC Charter" or "Avalon PMC Policies and Procedures".
>
>OK, let me try to address points 1, 3, 6 first. I think that will
>remove 80% of your objections, and we can deal with the rest plus
>anything I missed separately. I'd just like to clear things up
>by going for the non-controversial, easily fixable points first 
>(especially 1, which was the cause > 50% of the objections.)
>

Good summary.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
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