You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org> on 2003/09/29 03:19:27 UTC
unicameral solution
Have been thinking along the same lines - although I wasn't able to
capture the essence as nicely as Andrew :-).
To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.
This would bring us to a unicameral solution while maintaining
appropriate checks and balances through the diligence of the Incubator.
Stephen.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT
>replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
>
>1. A PMC vote to accept it
>2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave
>3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
>
>The only country that ever invested significantly in such a system was
>Poland (other examples exist but the other bodies are subservient and
>generally advise more than consent). This was *one* of the times it was
>wiped off the map.
>
>I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second
>most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose
>#3 would be the least vested group.
>
>The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone
>does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty
>funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
>
>-Andy
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: unicameral solution
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
>
> 1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate
not necessary.
> 2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate.
not applicable.
> 3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.
not true. the incubator is the *sole* authority.
you appear to have the wrong end of the stick here, stephen. the
sponsor is merely a bystander, something like the parent of a child
in school. to follow that imperfect analogy, the incubator is the
school -- nothing the parent can do will affect whether the child
graduates or not. the parent simply has the option of welcoming
the graduate -- or disowning it.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org