In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Leo Simons"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
Rules come into play when there are disagreements about what has been
built as consensus. Those rules can be used to twist and subvert the
interests of the community ("oh, but you didn't follow Rule X, so that
isn't valid!") or they can be used in a very helpful way.
But however you want to slice it: the people who were interested enough to
participate in the vote *unanimously* voted for asking the Board to set up
the Avalon PMC. Who the heck cares what the Jakarta rules are? I can tell
you the Board doesn't... it cares what the community said. As one of the
members of that Board, I see great community support for a new PMC. That
is *more* than enough to put the resolution before the Board for
discussion and voting.
Cheers,
-g
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
