-----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:56 AM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
>> >> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's >> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not. > >Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list >recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes. And please see the last 10 years of Apache policy regarding what consensus means, and what it doesn't. I'm sick of your sweeping statements -- be direct. You have a problem with my proposal -- good -- no matter how many "go off this list" or "bugger off", or "take your proposal" elsewhere emails you send, the point is, I've done the work; have mentored projects, and have done a lot more than simply talk about what to get done and what not to get done in the past N years of the Incubator. So yes, I care just as much as you do, and I've done the work to document my care. > >If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is >a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no >consensus. This isn't a majority issue. It doesn't matter if it's a majority or not issue. You made a sweeping statement: {quote} I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message. {quote} How_on_Earth can you get a gauge on what 170+ people believe, or what they don't? I suggested calling a VOTE, I wouldn't even know what the binding results of the VOTE would be -- but at least it's measurable and quantifiable instead of declarative which is the language that I see you prefer using. > >I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to >send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more >accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for >permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel >confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a >lack of consensus in favor of the idea. One the one hand you want to make thinly veiled statements about what power you have as VP; on the other you pull back and claim what roles you don't own. So, which one is it, Benson? I for one am also sick of the whoo hah hah, and I've given up that this committee will decide much of anything. That's not a slight to the committee, which contains some of the most well respected (by me and others) members of the ASF. It's more a slight to the ridiculous model that the IPMC has employed, and the thumbing its nose at the traditional mantras of the ASF that it ignores (e.g., the utter uselessness and destruction that umbrella projects, once arrived at, create). Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org