Ted Husted wrote:
A release is not an action that requires consensus approval. It's a
majority action. Look farther down under "Release Plan" and "Release
Grade".
Ah your right! Ok, in that case:
"An action requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding
+1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes"
That would apply then, correct? In which case, I don't think the case
is any different: if a binding vote is the same as a non-binding vote,
as Niall and others have said, then non-binding voters can still hault a
majority action, and hence the release, based on what that statement
says. Are we OK with that? If not, then it's tantamount to saying
binding votes are not the same as non-binding votes. Getting consensus
on that statement, one way or another, is important because the bylaws
either directly contradict it, or they just need to be massaged a little
to come in line with the reality.
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).
Well, first, AFAIK, it's never actually happened. But, if we did have
a flurry of earnest -1s from regular contributors, I'd probably change
my own vote, and I expect most other PMC members would do the same.
And I suspect you're right about that. Make no mistake, I don't believe
there has ever been an irresponsible vote outcome, certainly none I can
recall ever seeing. I'm just saying it would be better to have it all
codified cleanly, matching the reality, and I'm not at all sure that's
the case today.
Which is why we've been having these discussions, to clarify our
expections. Martin, Niall, Nathan, and I don't chat out-of-band.
Everything we've had to say to each other, we've said here.
Absolutely, and that's a healthy community at work. But simply
clarifying expectations without putting it in writing almost inevitably
leads to the same kind of discussions down the road, especially in a
community with members coming and going frequently.
I asked about a voter's implied intention to make a good-faith effort,
which is effectively an opinion.
I don't think I'd agree with that... I can have an opinion on what grade
a release should have for instance, can even vote on it, without any
intention of supporting it. I can do this because I cast a non-binding
vote. But again, it everyone feels binding==non-binding, I'll certainly
vote (or simply not vote as the case may be) accordingly. I still
believe the bar is higher for binding voters though.
In the case of a release vote, it occurs to me that the "obligation"
in question is reviewing the release and forming an opinion as to
whether it meets our standards our correctness. Where "our" is the
expectations of the ASF as well as the expectations of the Apache
Struts Group. The meaning then becomes that we are not simply tossing
out an armchair opinion, but we are stating an informed opinion based
on direct experience.
That's interesting... so you see no implied statement in the case of a
release vote about intention/willingness to support?
As for our intentions as to support, the general opinion seems to be
that support is a separate topic from release grade.
Ah, I think that answers my previous question :) But it begs another:
how does the question of support get dealt with then? I'm pushing here
because I believe it's important that it's clear, not just to Apache
members, but to anyone that may be thinking of using Struts and
therefore has some interest in who will or will not (may or may not)
support a release.
Think of it this way: if someone can't tell by looking at the guiding
principals of the project, i.e., the bylaws, that those releasing the
bits believe their votes carries some implied intent to support, and if
that intention isn't otherwise somehow stated (a separate vote
perhaps?), then how can that person ever have any confidence whatsoever
that the bits they are looking at using will have any level of support?
And yes, I realize this is open-source where there is never a
guarantee about such a thing, but we're not talking about making
guarantees, we're simply talking about good-faith intentions, either
directly stated or implied, and in the case of implied, that implication
being codified.
Since the project is a living working group, and not a political body,
some ambiguity seems fine, even necessary. Within the ASF boundaries,
each set of committers should be able to able to put their own spin on
things, so that the project works for us, not the other way around.
I don't disagree that flexibility is good, to a degerr, and I'm not
looking to write up a binding contract here either :) But the fact that
this discussion began in the first place from an apparent disagreement
between you and Martin about the meaning of something that there
probably shouldn't have been any question about in the first place I
take as a sign that there is some level of disconnect going on, and
getting the bylaws right if for no other reason than everyone can point
to it and say "that's the right answer", is the way to deal with it.
-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]
