Leo Sutic wrote:
All, I haven't received any feedback from Leo Simons or Stephen on the previous post I made regarding this. I assume that both of you would make noise if what I proposed was unacceptable, so based on the absense of criticism, and my general feeling that we have consensus on most if not all items, I'd like to switch to [PROPOSAL] mode.
Sorry about that! Lots of comments in-line. More along the lines of what's wrong with this text - not so many suggestions concerning improvements (aside from the folowing - Leo's text kept itself with the scope of the PMC procedures, Berin's text blurred this sufficiently such that lots of things break. Anyway - see comments in-line, have been in meetings all day today and will be in more tommorow so I don't have much of a chance to be usefull just at the moment - but thoughts on comments appreciated.
-oOo-
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
=== The Vote Administrator === The vote administrator is the person who tallies the votes and reports the results back to the developer list. The person who actually puts a proposal up for vote is usually the vote administrator, although this task can be taken on by someone else. === The Voter === A voter is someone who expresses support or opposition for the subject being voted on. For a voter's vote to count, he must be qualified. All voters must either be a committer on the Avalon project or an Avalon PMC member. Certain types of votes require that the voter be a PMC member. The different types of votes are detailed in the section "The Vote".
This is not talking about PMC votes - its talking about voting in general. Leo's version ono this is much more specific and appropriate. PMC votes do not require qualification. Voters are PMC members - nobody else.
== Prior to the Vote == Before any vote can take place, the subject must be discussed with the larger Avalon development community. All such discussions take place on the Avalon developer mailing list, and have the text "[PROPOSAL]" in the subject line. That practice alerts the developers to the fact that you eventually intend to call a vote on the subject.
Discussion on a proposal WILL take place. Discussion MAY take place on the Avalon dev list. Discussion MAY take place on the PMC list.
== The Vote ==
When the proposal is ready to be adopted by the community, the
Proposer will call for a vote.
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.
Votes may be held on the PMC or Dev list - that up to whoever isAll votes occur on the Avalon developers mailing list, andhave the text "[VOTE]" in the subject line. That practice alerts the developers to the fact that the prior proposal is now ready to vote on, and discussion should stop for the proposal.
initiating the vote and will reflect the content of the vote. Votes should be marked [PMC:VOTE]. See Leo's text.
=== How to Vote ===
The voter responds to the original call for vote with an
expression of support, opposition, or abstaination. The
exact way to express the voter's position is listed below:
* +1 a vote supporting the subject
* +0 a vote abstaining from the subject, but showing some support.
* -0 a vote abstaining from the subject, but showing disapproval.
* -1 a vote opposing the subject
Because a vote has already been discussed by the community,
the voter who expresses a vote of -1 is required to provide
a detailed explanation as to why the voter opposes the
subject.
Disagree on requirement for a detailed explination. This is required on things like vetos but it is not required on a majority vote. Voters (PMC members) should not be required to explain their voting position.
That explanation needs to list any steps that the proposer can take to make the voter change their position.
Disagree. This is incositent with PMC voting and inappropriate. (see above)
Procedures should not qualify types of votes. Thats' a matter for the PMC to cosider during discussion.=== Counting Votes === The vote administrator will count only the last vote from each voter. That means a voter may change their vote at any time during the duration of the vote. It is the vote administrator's duty to make sure that the voter is qualified to make a vote on the subject. The qualifications are listed under the sub heading "Types of Votes". === Types of Votes === The PMC may vote on any number of procedures. It is not the PMC's role to affect the technical direction of the Avalon project, but its procedural direction. There are two classes of votes: a Qualified Majority Vote and a Normal Majority Vote.
==== Qualified Majority Vote ==== Any vote that affects the PMC charter, affects the rules that govern the PMC is a Qualified Majority Vote. For this type of vote to pass, it requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority of voters who are PMC members. Input is appreciated from committers and all other members of the community, but only votes from PMC members are counted for this type of vote.
The should be more clear. Botes relating to the modification of the "Avalon PMC Charter" or "Avalon PMC Policies and Procedures" shall require a 2/3 majority. The above should refer to specific documents.
The mixing of committers and PMC members on voting confusses
==== Normal Majority Vote ====
All votes that do not fall under the heading of Qualified
Majority Vote are handled as a Normal Majority Vote.
Examples of PMC actions that fall under this heading include
creating new CVS repositories, or creating or merging mailing
lists, but it is not limited to just those activities.
All committers will vote on the subject,
the issue/procedures. Certainly - if a PMC matter is being
discussed and voted on the dev list - a commiter can comment. But a committer cannot vote - ok - they could send an email
with something that looks like a +1 or a -1 but its not a vote
and should not be referenced as such - its an opinion. This
simply confuses the procedures. It is better to drop this
notion completely - if a vote is held on the dev list then
we are implying that comment is encoraged (otherwise the vote
would have been held on the PMC list). Procedures do not need
to talk about non-voter votes because they simply don't exist.
and if it passes
with more than half (1/2) of the voters support, the PMC
members will ratify it.
Disagree - voters are PMC members - period.
If it passes the PMC vote with more than half (1/2) of voters supporting it, then the vote has passed.
Which only makes sence if the entire notion of "voters" is dramtically cleaned up. See Leo's version that does not mix these two concerns. See current procedutres that do not mix these concerns.
=== Voting Qualifications === In order for any vote to be considered binding, it must have proper representation, and be held for the proper amount of time. ==== Representation ==== For all votes, there must be at least three (3) voters. For PMC level votes, there must be half (1/2) of the PMC making some vote.
Again - this is mixing general voting and PMC voting. They are seperate subjects. This is a discussion about revising the procedures we have established for PMC voting. The notion of voter is mixed up and needs a big revision.
==== Duration ==== All votes will last for at least a week. If there is not enough representation within the first week, then the length of time will be extended for one additional week. If the vote still does not have enough support, then the vote is considered failed. The proposer can choose to bring it up later when proper representation is available.
I prefer using the correct words for this - its called "quorum".
== After the Vote ==
When the vote is closed, the results of the vote are
summarized by the Vote Administrator. The vote
administrator will send an email to the Avalon
developer's list with the text "[VOTE-RESULT]"
The vote result should be marked [PMC:VOTE-RESULT]. A vote result SHALL be published. The result MAY be sent to the PMC list or dev list - the list is discretionary - publication is not.
in the
subject that has the summary. The summary will include
the count of all +1, +0, -0, and -1 responses, and
the final verdict of whether the subject passed.
== Disagreements ==
Disagreements regarding the interpretation of the voting procedure are arbitrated by the PMC Chair.
The word "arbitrated" is incorrect here. The chair isn't there to arbitrate. Disagreements may be directed to the Chair. What the Chair does is the Chairs decision and is binding ont the PMC. If someone does not like the chair's decision they can raise the matter with the board.
--------------- END OF PROPOSAL TEXT
-oOo-
Basically, I have added the very last section:
Disagreements
Disagreements regarding the interpretation of the voting procedure are arbitrated by the PMC Chair.
I think this satisfies the requirements to avoid a deadlock, and
will contain the fallback to Avalon.
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. Cheers, Steve.
/LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
