Leo:
There are a couple of points here:
1. The reason that we are discussing revision to the
PMC Voting procedures was initiated because the
current procedures are considered by some as
difficult to read - the subject of this message
concerns a structural change to what is already
adopted. I would prefer that we do not modify
the procedures in this way. If Berin wants see
the potential introduction of a change to the
procedures such that committer votes are
recognized then he should be proposing this a
seperate topic, potentially leading to a vote on
that topic.
2. Secondly, I completely support the notion of
public discussion of PMC matters and participation
of the community in these discussions. The fact
that we discuss and hold some votes in public
is positive. However, the inclusion of committers
as voters requires a formal introduction of that
notion - in order to seperate PMC member only
discussions and votes. Given that once PMC
procedures are out of the way - PMC list traffic
will be practically zero. Surely, if matters concern
the general community - then it will be a general
communit vote - but its a problem that the PMC
is obliged to address - then its the PMC we are
talking about - a smaller group charged with the
resoponsibility of oversight. My experience is that
the once we over the establishment phase, we will
have very little traffic and when soomething is needed
a the PMC level - it will be something that will
probably stay within the PMC.
I.e. conclusion - drop the notion of committer votes (in other
words lets keep this thread about enhancing usibility of the
currently adopted procedures), and leave it to Berin to propose
a well prepared revision in the future (if he feels it is
necessary).
Cheers, Steve.
Leo Sutic wrote:
Regarding who gets to vote - there appears to be a disagreement
between Stephen and Berin.
Berin has a two-step vote for the Normal Majority Vote:
First, every committer votes, and if the vote passes the
PMC votes on it. Stephen limits this to PMC-only.
There is also an issue where discussion prior to vote should be
held:
Stephen: avalon-dev OR avalon-pmc
Berin: avalon-dev
Given that the Chair has dictator rights, how about picking the
choices that gives the most flexibility and trust the Chair to
step in and force it if needed?
So:
In the first case, we keep the two-step voting process. The
Chair can overrule the committer vote if needed.
This means that we give committers (but not PMC members)
representation, but not to the point where they can block the
PMC doing what is really a PMC vote. The committers get
representation, but we clearly state that the PMC (and the Chair)
can overrule in extreme cases (that should never happen).
In the second case, we allow discussion to take place on
avalon-pmc, and the Chair can force the discussion to be held
on avalon-dev if needed.
I think this will make the "general case" not requiring Chair
intervention, and special cases handled by the Chair. Allowing
the discussion to take place on the pmc list is only a problem
if something that should be open is kept with in the pmc list.
That said, I recognize that there are things that shouldn't be
discussed in public, and we should not commit ourselves to
a procedure that ignores that and requires everything to be
public. (Consider the board discussion leading to Peter D.'s
suspension, I don't think it would have been to anyone's advantage
if the reasons for the suspension (private emails etc.) had been
laid out in public.)
/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]>
