>>> The Apache Way is like Zen. There are some rules and plenty of >>> guidelines, >>> but it's really about having a healthy community that listens to each >>> other >>> and works towards consensus. >>> >> >> Shane, it should be obvious to a stone that I am advocating the Zen >> approach of just taking the lazy consensus and moving forward to it.
Please let us not discuss Zen now. > Personally, I'd love to see a [VOTE] thread on the forum migration issue if > for nothing else than to show the forum volunteers the amount of support > they have here. I get the impression that they think "we" really don't like > them, and I have to say that a significant number of them have mentioned the > style of your participation in the forum threads as the specific reason for > that. Personally, I think the social and community aspect of this migration > is far more important than procedural issues. +1 But we are just mentors. We have no cared long time on the forum. It is time that the ooo-dev takes the lead and shows them a signal that the project is ready to adopt them. Be it with a vote or a nice message. After all it is the ooo-dev win or loss on this. I think the time has come that somebody of the ooo-dev takes the lead and brings the forum to the project. If this has been agreed with a lazy consens, then the project should start a vote to bring the new PMC people. Whatever. The forum people has been asked to bring in at proposal. They did. Now it is time to say in clear words: yes, guys, please join. So ooo-dev, please fight for your forum yourself now. > > - Shane, realizing he also hasn't had breakfast yet, which could explain > some things. > >> Now is the time for the forum admins, moderators and volunteers to >> decide if they want to go forward, based on the lazy consensus >> received. Or whether they want to tie this up in another week of >> procedural wrangling. And for what purpose?. Personally I'd >> recommend that they JFDI. >> >> -Rob >> >>> Also, I really question if a significant percentage of the rest of the >>> PPMC >>> has a similar shared understanding to this view in terms of how rigid you >>> seem to see policies everywhere. Given that the podling is only a few >>> months old, and it's made up of primarily new committers, I expect any >>> "rules" here to be changed a few times before graduation. >>> >>>> >>>> IMHO, we should be voting on things in only two situations: >>>> >>>> 1) Where the Apache process requires it, e.g., releases, new committers, >>>> etc. >>> >>> And please note Christian's comment: >>>>> >>>>> Finally we are adding people to the PMC >>>>> with this vote too! >>> >>> Really? Who - specifically - are we adding to the PMC? Does everyone on >>> this thread really have the same understanding of what this proposal >>> does? >>> >>> PMC or committer additions are one of the things that do require a vote, >>> and >>> that's a rule you can't break. It should also be a separate vote for >>> each >>> individual being added. >>> >>> - Shane >>> >>>> 2) Where prolonged discussion and good faith efforts have failed to >>>> reach a consensus and we're forced to have a vote to choose from >>>> alternatives >>>> >>>> I don't think we should allow a proposer to self-select a decision >>>> making method (a vote) that requires a lesser degree of consensus. If >>>> we allowed this, then wouldn't we decide every question via a vote? >>>> What proposer would not prefer to have the lesser requirement of 51% >>>> approval rather than risk a veto when calling for lazy consensus? >>>> >>>> -Rob >>> > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
