On 1/16/15, 6:10 AM, "Rich Bowen" <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>Yes, with all of my various hats, I heartily endorse this task. You're >right, this would be of great value both inside and outside of Apache. > I’m definitely eager to see what Marvin can do here. I’ve been wondering though: any top-level policy document cannot fully specify all human behavior. IMO, that’s why governing bodies have authority figures who make judgement calls. The US has a judicial system, the game of golf has a group of folks who make decisions. Is it the various VP’s that get to be the judge? I’ve often thought about golf when following Apache policy threads. Golf has a reasonably detailed rule book but they realize that there are lots of edge cases in real life and the rule book would be unwieldy if it tried to specify everything. So the rule book tries to carefully specify general principles and is rarely changed. Then there is a whole archive of decisions associated with each rule where this group of folks records decisions made. Is it reasonable to do something like this at Apache? Apache Legal seems to already have something like this. There are legal policy docs, then the legal-resolved page. One of the questions I often have when using legal-discuss is whether the answer I’m getting is authoritative or not. I know folks are leery about establishing a tier of folks who can authoritatively make the judgement calls, but maybe we have to have that so that folks know when they are getting an official answer vs the opinions of other community members. To become a golf rules official you have to pass a test. And to get on the board of official golf decision makers is a much harder task. Maybe we need a test in order to be an Apache Way Rules Official. -Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
