Well I for one didn't vote because I took the weekend off...
This vote did not include Peter, Pete or Berin, not to mention a lot
of others.
I have not had the energy to keep up with all of the feuding going on
lately,
but the vote did seem to be rather one sided.
I don't personally feel that the answer to all this is to pass a bunch
of strict new rules.
The real problem is that a select few simply refuse to play nicely with
others. For the
life of me I can not figure out why they stay in the group as they show
no interest
in trying to work together to come up with the best possible product.
Suggesting an idea and then complaining and complaining until everyone
gives up and lets
you do it is not "working together". All this does is cause other
members of the group
to stop reading all posts by said members.
There has been a lot of bashing of Peter lately about him not working
together and giving
-1s without explanations. But from what I have seen the majority of
those cases have
been after a lot of the above mentioned complaining. I personally would
have grown quite
tired of it all as well and applaud Peter for his staying power.
Peter has been on this project for a very long time. He has consistently
put forward a lot
of effort at working with the community to help evolve Avalon in such a
way as to
provide a consistent migration path for users. Anything which would
weaken his position
or push him out of the Avalon group would be very bad for the group as a
whole.
This whole attempt to go over the heads of the member of the group and
get the Apache
board involved in this squabble just looks like more of the same
complaining.
I've had ideas shot down here and else where as well. Having them shot
down always made
me go back and reevaluate my ideas. The result was always a much better
solution.
I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this
subject over the
past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony =
better product
is false. So take it as you will but I vote:
-1
What is the answer to this then? That is a difficult question. But a few
people
Growing Up a bit would go a long way to making working on Avalon an
enjoyable
experience again.
Cheers,
Leif
Leo Simons wrote:
>I think the vote regarding the Avalon PMC proposal was carried out in
>accordance with the jakarta project guidelines and can be marked as
>valid under those guidelines. I think that the requirement for consensus
>approval (3 binding +1 votes and no binding -1 votes) has been
>satisfied, as has been the requirement for majority approval (3 binding
>+1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes), as has been the requirement
>for lazy approval (no -1 votes).
>
>Thus, I can only come to the conclusion that the proposal has been
>approved.
>
>It could be seen as worrying that a high percentage of active committer
>chose not to vote. There can be many reasons why an active committer
>chooses not to vote on a proposal; I think for anyone to make
>assumptions about those reasons is a bad idea, especially since it is
>apparent different people make different assumptions.
>
>For example, my explanation would again be different from those already
>given: either a non-voting committer was unable to vote (because he/she
>was underway to ApacheCon, for example), deliberately chose not to vote
>(for example, I can imagine a long-time emeritus, choosing not to
>participate at all), was happy with the direction the vote was going in
>(consensus approval), or did not want to commit to helping out make the
>changes (as voting +1 also means volunteering to help make the changes).
>
>Add up all the different reasons already given at this point and it
>seems to become impossible to make any kind of general statement about
>the reasons for the large ratio of non-voting committers. I would
>suggest we do away with further discussion on this proposal and simply
>accept the outcome.
>
>best regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
