> -----Original Message----- > From: Leo Sutic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 4:03 PM > To: Avalon Developer's List > Subject: PMC Voting Process > > > All, > > 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. > > -oOo- > > 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: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-dev&m=104213058521206&w=2 > > Stephen's: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103924111629118&w=2 > > Unfortunately I have not been able to find Berin's text at > marc.theaimsgroup.com. Berin, could you provide a link?
Here: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?AvalonPMCVotingProcedures and I could have swarn I sent the contents of the page (the WIKI source) to the list--but I can't find the reference either..... > 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 > vote. > > 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. Right. > -oOo- > > THE ISSUES > > 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. > > > LAYMAN VERSION > > 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. Considering that we are getting back in line with what the mind of Apache is (I am assuming you meant to type Apache), we could do this. > STRICT VERSION > > 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. Handling all disagreements can *usually* be handled discretely without need of arbitration. The disagreements that can't should be escalated through the PMC and ultimately to the board. Nevertheless we should try to assume trust until proven otherwise (by actions). > -oOo- > > 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? I believe so. > 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? I think so as well. > 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? And again, to 3 & 4, I beleive so. > -oOo- > > 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. Right. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
