Ted Husted wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 10:47 AM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(1) If as you say Niall "votes are votes", then that SHOULD mean that
non-binding voters can veto a release, but the bylaws say differently:
"3 binding +1 votes" and "no binding vetos" is the benchmark to whether
a action passes or not. It doesn't say "3 +1 votes from anyone", nor
does it say "no vetos from anyone", it specifically spells out binding
votes. Non-binding votes are not officially considered in other words.
Nobody can veto a release. It's a majority vote action not a consensus
vote action.
That may be so in practice Ted, but the bylaws say differently:
"An action requiring consensus approval must receive at least 3 binding
+1 votes and no binding vetos."
Does that not say, effectively, that a single binding -1 causes an
action (which I assume a release is) to not have consensus approval?
Seems to me that's exactly what it says.
We don't "count" non-binding votes, but most of us would take them
into consideration. If I'm on the fence, and a number of contributors
cast +1 non-binding votes, then I'm more likely to cast my binding
vote for GA. The inverse is also true.
And I think that's a perfectly reasonable way to approach it, but that's
not what the bylaws says, nor is it what Nial and Nathan say is in
"their books" (I'm not picking on you two by the way, but I don't think
you're the only ones that feel that way, hence it's likely a reflection
on a larger group feeling).
We publish the project guidelines (or "by laws") to cover the common
cases, so that we don't have to have these types of discussions every
time we create a release. We're not trying to be legalistic, we're
just trying to get the work done.
And that too is reasonable, except that now you've got Martin seemingly
disagreeing with you (how this all started as I recall) and both Niall
and Nathan apparently with understanding that don't seem to jive with
the bylaws, hence it seems obvious to me that something needs to be
done, and the easiest answer is probably to rewrite the bylaws to match
the consensus view, whatever that turns out to be.
Since everyone here is a volunteer, there's no way to enforce an
obligation, and the ASF guidelines remind us of this. A vote is an
opinion, not a commitment.
Didn't you effectively say the opposite just yesterday? :
"It's true that we're volunteers, and any of us can walk away whenever
we like, but it's also true that when we vote +1 on a GA, each voter
is saying that he or she intends to help support the release. If the
release includes a J4 distribution, it means that we are each saying
that we will make a good-faith effort to support that distribution
too."
Maybe it's a semantic thing, but if a +1 vote means "...he or she
intends to help support the release", isn't that an obligation? Or is
"obligation" simply the wrong term? Perhaps willingness, as I suggested
yesterday?
The key thing to me is what are the expectations of the commiters when
we vote +1 on a GA release. Right now, the general feeling is that a
+1 GA vote doesn't indicate that the committer will have the bandwidth
available to support the release. Meaning, if I want to ask about
that, we need to ask in a different context.
We're saying the same thing here. I personally feel that a +1 *should*
imply something, but if everyone disagrees with me, that's fine, but it
seems obvious there isn't consensus on that right now, and the bylaws
say something that not everyone else seems to be saying in any case, so
what's the final arbiter of which way is accurate? The bylaws should
spell it all out clearly and unambiguously, regardless of what it is
that they actually spell out, just to avoid such situations.
I understand the bylaws aren't meant to be legalize, but I believe I've
pointed out some contradictions and interpretations that should be dealt
with so there's never any debate over what a vote does or does not mean,
what obligations someone does or does not have. I don't so much care
what the answers actually are, only that they are clear and
unassailable, and I'd expect everyone would want that level of clarity
from any project they're involve din.
-Ted.
Frank
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology"
(2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1)
and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects"
(2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4)
and "Practical DWR 2 Projects"
(2008, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-941-1)
Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
