You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com> on 2002/12/06 14:44:41 UTC
[Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
willing to vote on the proposal.
This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 19:58, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> This is a vote of the Avalon Committer community.
>
> The vote is:
>
> To recommend to the PMC the the voting
> policies and procedures detailed below be
> adopted by the PMC.
I vote +1
- Leo Simons
<snip the proposal/>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
[VOTE-RESULT] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
The vote to recommend to the PMC the the voting policies and procedures
has passed with 6 supporting votes, no abstentions and no opposing votes.
The voting record is as follows:
+1 Stephen McConnell
+1 Berin Loritsch
+1 Leo Simons
+1 Leo Sutic
+1 Nicola Ken Barozzi
+1 Peter Royal
Accordingly, the following recommendation will be submitted to the
Avalon PMC for adoption.
APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - RECOMMENDATION
====================================================
Definitions
-----------
Definition 1. PMC
All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the 20 November
2002 and subsequent amendments.
Definition 2. PMC Membership
The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 3. PMC Chair
A member of the PMC, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC Membership
and the broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined
under the PMC resolution (definition [1]).
Definition 4. PMC Charter
The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 5. Normal Vote
Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [6].
Definition 6. Qualified Majority Vote.
A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
(a) Modification to or amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
by definition [3].
(b) Modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
established hereunder.
PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
---------------------------------
Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
(a) Preconditions to Voting
A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag.
(b) Quorum Calculations
Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
nearest non-fractional number).
(c) Voting Conventions
Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted
to the members of the PMC. Votes may be expressed in
support, opposition, or abstention in accordance with the
following conventions:
+1 a vote supporting the motion
+0 a vote of supportive abstention
-0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
-1 a vote opposing the motion
A member may vote multiple times. The last vote registered
within the voting period shall stand as the members vote.
(d) Normal Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
by definition [5], meeting preconditions defined under Article
1 (a), shall require a majority of greater than 50%, shall be
subject to the quorum calculations as defined under Article 1
(b), and vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f).
(e) Qualified Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Vote as
defined by definition [5], meeting preconditions defined under
Article 1 (a), shall require a majority of greater than 2/3,
shall be subject to the quorum calculations as defined under
Article 1 (b), and vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f).
(f) Vote Duration
Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed after 7 days following
initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
vote shall be consider as a failed vote.
(g) Post-conditions to Voting
A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
the message title.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Stephen,
You kind of lost me there. Specifically, votes related to code change are
subject to a binding veto. Shouldn't it be clear somewhere that the voting
policy you've laid out does not cover such votes? Not everyone coming along
someday is going to have the context that people reading these discussions
have.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>I get no vote,
>
Which is something we will be addressing in our first P&P amendement -
the policies and procedures concerning members, chair and all of that
stuff. The role and relationship of people like yourself is an impotant
aspect to be addressed.
Exciting isn't it!
:-)
>but I'd like to extend support to the Avalon community for
>this step.
>
It's appreciated.
>
>Stephen, one issue technically missing from your document. In all of the
>excitement to deal with Normal and Qualified votes, you defined Normal vote
>as "any vote not falling within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote", but
>you forgot that there is still a class of votes for which there is a veto.
>
>That is the only thing that appears to be "wrong" with the docuement, unless
>I missed where you have accounted for that issue.
>
The issue is accounted for in that "it does not and should not exist at
the level of the PMC". I agree with your follow-up reply to Berin that
the addition of notes detailing the non-technical orientation of the PMC
would be helpful within the descriptive text. I would also like state
explicity that I think it would be a mistake to introduce any such
wording into the P&P formal policy - as this immediately raises the
question of the definition of what is technical and what is not. As the
proposal stand, that's something that rests with the judgment of the
respective PMC members.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Berin,
> The document is meant to address PMC specific voting procedures.
> That means procedural changes, alterations to PMC documentation,
> etc.
> It does not address technical voting.
I understand that completely. But the document does not SAY that, which is
my point. Take your comments, add them as a prologue, and I wouldn't have
raised the issue.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
>
> I get no vote, but I'd like to extend support to the Avalon
> community for
> this step.
>
> Stephen, one issue technically missing from your document.
> In all of the
> excitement to deal with Normal and Qualified votes, you
> defined Normal vote
> as "any vote not falling within the scope of a Qualified
> Majority Vote", but
> you forgot that there is still a class of votes for which
> there is a veto.
>
> That is the only thing that appears to be "wrong" with the
> docuement, unless
> I missed where you have accounted for that issue.
The document is meant to address PMC specific voting procedures.
That means procedural changes, alterations to PMC documentation,
etc.
It does not address technical voting.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
I get no vote, but I'd like to extend support to the Avalon community for
this step.
Stephen, one issue technically missing from your document. In all of the
excitement to deal with Normal and Qualified votes, you defined Normal vote
as "any vote not falling within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote", but
you forgot that there is still a class of votes for which there is a veto.
That is the only thing that appears to be "wrong" with the docuement, unless
I missed where you have accounted for that issue.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 06:58 PM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>> This is a vote of the Avalon Committer community. The vote is:
>> To recommend to the PMC the the voting
>> policies and procedures detailed below be
>> adopted by the PMC.
+1
-pete
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> This is a vote of the Avalon Committer community.
>
> The vote is:
>
> To recommend to the PMC the the voting
> policies and procedures detailed below be
> adopted by the PMC.
>
[...]
+1
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> This is a vote of the Avalon Committer community.
>
> The vote is:
>
> To recommend to the PMC the the voting
> policies and procedures detailed below be
> adopted by the PMC.
>
> To kick things off, here is my vote:
>
I vote +1 as well.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
[VOTE] PMC Voting Policies and Procedures
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
This is a vote of the Avalon Committer community.
The vote is:
To recommend to the PMC the the voting
policies and procedures detailed below be
adopted by the PMC.
To kick things off, here is my vote:
+1
Cheers, Steve.
APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
==============================================
Definitions
-----------
Definition 1. PMC
All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the 20 November
2002 and subsequent amendments.
Definition 2. PMC Membership
The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 3. PMC Chair
A member of the PMC, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC Membership
and the broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined
under the PMC resolution (definition [1]).
Definition 4. PMC Charter
The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 5. Normal Vote
Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [6].
Definition 6. Qualified Majority Vote.
A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
(a) Modification to or amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
by definition [3].
(b) Modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
established hereunder.
PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
---------------------------------
Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
(a) Preconditions to Voting
A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag.
(b) Quorum Calculations
Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
nearest non-fractional number).
(c) Voting Conventions
Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted
to the members of the PMC. Votes may be expressed in
support, opposition, or abstention in accordance with the
following conventions:
+1 a vote supporting the motion
+0 a vote of supportive abstention
-0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
-1 a vote opposing the motion
A member may vote multiple times. The last vote registered
within the voting period shall stand as the members vote.
(d) Normal Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
by definition [5], meeting preconditions defined under Article
1 (a), shall require a majority of greater than 50%, shall be
subject to the quorum calculations as defined under Article 1
(b), and vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f).
(e) Qualified Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Vote as
defined by definition [5], meeting preconditions defined under
Article 1 (a), shall require a majority of greater than 2/3,
shall be subject to the quorum calculations as defined under
Article 1 (b), and vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f).
(f) Vote Duration
Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed after 7 days following
initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
vote shall be consider as a failed vote.
(g) Post-conditions to Voting
A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
the message title.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Stephen,
Please dude, can we have a better effort to trim away uneeded quoting.
Yes, I leave it in for the sake of an example in this case.
- Paul
>
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
>> to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
>>
>>
>
> Thats because we have the same private agenda.
> Community empowerment.
>
> ;-)
>
> Steve.
>
>> I also like the qualification of not allowing a VOTE unless it is
>> previously been a PROPOSAL.
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
>>>> very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
>>>> to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
>>>> of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
>>>>
>>>> * Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
>>> charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
>>>> up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
>>>> meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
>>>> have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
>>>> willing to vote on the proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
>>> sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also,
>>> under chair
>>> rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right
>>> to disallow
>>> a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
>>> only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
>>> that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
>>>> the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose
>>> something
>>> - and yes, I'll get to it!
>>>
>>> One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would be strict
>>> about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not
>>> be allowed
>>> if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
>>> discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote
>>> unless (i) it
>>> is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
>>> [VOTE-RESULT].
>>>
>>> Cheers, Steve.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>
>>>
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>
>>
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stephen J. McConnell
>>
>> OSM SARL
>> digital products for a global economy
>> mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>> http://www.osm.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
I have been following this and have no comments.
I think it's going to work - it is very simple and gives
the chair the ability to decide in questionable issues,
meaning that we don't have to sit down and detail every
last bit in the charter.
I'll have to see the final proposal before I vote,
but I'm positive to it.
/LS
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>
>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
>>>to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Thats because we have the same private agenda.
>>Community empowerment.
>>
>>
>
>Ok, Lets #1, put this proposal (with your mods) up for vote,
>and #2 incorporate it into the Charter.
>
>Can I get you to write it up in a manner that will be incorporated
>into the Charter and then post that section to the list for VOTE?
>
>I'd do it myself, but I have another work related proposal I have
>to finish up. I also don't have CVS access while at work--I just
>got my other machine, so I will see what I can do with it.
>
>
No problem - will do.
Steve.
>
>
>>;-)
>>
>>Steve.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I also like the qualification of not allowing a VOTE unless it is
>>>previously been a PROPOSAL.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>>>
>>>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
>>>>>very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
>>>>>to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
>>>>>of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
>>>>>
>>>>>* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
>>>>charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>+1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
>>>>>up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
>>>>>meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
>>>>>have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
>>>>>willing to vote on the proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>+1
>>>>
>>>>In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
>>>>sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also,
>>>>under chair
>>>>rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right
>>>>to disallow
>>>>a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
>>>>only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
>>>>that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
>>>>>the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose
>>>>something
>>>>- and yes, I'll get to it!
>>>>
>>>>One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would
>>>>
>>>>
>>be strict
>>
>>
>>>>about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not
>>>>be allowed
>>>>if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
>>>>discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote
>>>>unless (i) it
>>>>is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
>>>>[VOTE-RESULT].
>>>>
>>>>Cheers, Steve.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Stephen J. McConnell
>>>
>>>OSM SARL
>>>digital products for a global economy
>>>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>>>http://www.osm.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>
>>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>
>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>--
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>
>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>
>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>Stephen J. McConnell
>
>OSM SARL
>digital products for a global economy
>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Stefano,
>
>>>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> The PMC Chair may disallow
>>>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>>>> provided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -1 (vote not veto).
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul, no need to explicitly indicating this anymore. I think we got
>> the point that we need the ability to say 'I don't like this'.
>
>
> Forgive me for feeling nervous.
>
>> Note, however, that I personally tend to *not* consider a -1 unless a
>> reason is specified.
>>
>> so, I much rather see you making an effort to tell me what you didn't
>> like about that, instead of saying 'this is not a veto', which doesn't
>> really help me understanding your reasoning behind this (I can guess,
>> but that's might be further misunderstanding and friction created
>> right there).
>>
>> I'm sure you understand my point.
>
>
> For the record I do not think the PMC Chair should be allowed to act in
> such an editorial fashion. I understand goverance models, and think a
> chair should be one of coordinator for this type of club/society.
> Dissallowing a vote from someone on the PMC is crap democracy. With or
> without justification. The benign dictator model (that backs our
> meritocracy/democracy design) sits a level higher than PMC Chair. To be
> honest though, for the item voted on, I'd have thought that was obvious.
> My problem is that I do not work in a job that affords me the
> opportunity to write to the Avalon mail list all day. My Agile leanings
> tell me to be brief where I can.
No worries dude, I was just showing a point and took the chance on your
email message.
For the record, I *completely* agree with you and I stated it several
times: the PMC chair should be an ignorable thing. It's just a way to
state "he/she will talk to the board if we can't resolve ourselves".
That's it. It should be a way to avoid having tons of email bombing the
board@ and an easy way for the board to keep context (this person is the
chair for avalon).
But rather than this, the chair is just another PMC member and should
*never* *ever* be felt different from the other PMC members... for
example, it should not try to jump into disputes with a "I'm the
chair"-attitude, but jump into disputes with "I'm one of us"-attitude.
Let's make it possible that the PMC chair hat can be locked in a closet
and used *only* when the shit hits the fan or when the project has to
report its evolution to the board@... otherwise the friction on this
list will never stop!
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Stefano,
>>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>>
>>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> The PMC Chair may disallow
>>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>>> provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> -1 (vote not veto).
>
>
> Paul, no need to explicitly indicating this anymore. I think we got
> the point that we need the ability to say 'I don't like this'.
Forgive me for feeling nervous.
> Note, however, that I personally tend to *not* consider a -1 unless a
> reason is specified.
>
> so, I much rather see you making an effort to tell me what you didn't
> like about that, instead of saying 'this is not a veto', which doesn't
> really help me understanding your reasoning behind this (I can guess,
> but that's might be further misunderstanding and friction created
> right there).
>
> I'm sure you understand my point.
For the record I do not think the PMC Chair should be allowed to act in
such an editorial fashion. I understand goverance models, and think a
chair should be one of coordinator for this type of club/society.
Dissallowing a vote from someone on the PMC is crap democracy. With or
without justification. The benign dictator model (that backs our
meritocracy/democracy design) sits a level higher than PMC Chair. To be
honest though, for the item voted on, I'd have thought that was obvious.
My problem is that I do not work in a job that affords me the
opportunity to write to the Avalon mail list all day. My Agile leanings
tell me to be brief where I can.
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Stephen
>
>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>
>
> [..]
>
>> The PMC Chair may disallow
>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>> provided.
>
>
> -1 (vote not veto).
Paul, no need to explicitly indicating this anymore. I think we got the
point that we need the ability to say 'I don't like this'.
Note, however, that I personally tend to *not* consider a -1 unless a
reason is specified.
so, I much rather see you making an effort to tell me what you didn't
like about that, instead of saying 'this is not a veto', which doesn't
really help me understanding your reasoning behind this (I can guess,
but that's might be further misunderstanding and friction created right
there).
I'm sure you understand my point.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Stephen
>
>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>
>
> [..]
>
>> The PMC Chair may disallow
>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>> provided.
>
>
> -1 (vote not veto).
Just for reference, this is provided so that the chair can jump on
people proposing votes without disccussion, proposing votes that are
ambiogouse and should be reformed, etc, etc. If we don't like the
discretion of the chair - well we can express our opinion to the
members, the board, etc.
>
>> (e) Vote Duration
>>
>> A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
>> day period shall default to a 14 day duration.
>
>
> At the end of please. No more rushed votes. Mulling is good. Changing
> one's mind is not a failure.
>
>> The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
>> final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
>> result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
>> shall render the vote null and void.
>
>
> There are higher authorities than the PMC Chair. We should not
> discount them in our design here.
This has already been dropped on the grounds you put forward.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103924111629118&w=2
Cheers, Steve.
>
> -ph
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Stephen
> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
[..]
> The PMC Chair may disallow
> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
> provided.
-1 (vote not veto).
> (e) Vote Duration
>
> A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
> day period shall default to a 14 day duration.
At the end of please. No more rushed votes. Mulling is good. Changing
one's mind is not a failure.
> The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
> final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
> result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
> shall render the vote null and void.
There are higher authorities than the PMC Chair. We should not discount
them in our design here.
-ph
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 07:11, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> >>Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
> >>relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.
> >
> >do we need that? Why?
> >
>
> Because its less ambiguous.
>
> Keep in mind that legalistic prose basically the application of SOC on
> natural language. A reduction in ambiguity comes at the expense of
> having to work harder to read the document.
SoC huh? Cool. Here's a few concerns:
concern 1: I would like anyone with a reasonable skill in English to be
able to read all relevant documentation without needing to consult a
dictionary.
concern 2: I want that documentation to make clear the intention
contained in them (where I understand the intention of our rules is to
roughly maximize on consensus, reaching that consensus in a manner
acceptable to all (based on open discussion and community input etc
etc), and defaulting to "majority of the meritocracy rules" when
consensus is not possible but a resolution is needed)
concern 3: it is not possible to make any set of rules or guidelines
unambigous without requiring the people who work with them having some
kind of college degree in a relevant field (ie law). PMC nor community
members should be expected to hold such a degree :D
concern 4: I see lots of stuff I am amendable to but that does not also
indicate in the text itself the need it addresses. If I can't see it, I
won't expect others to do so.
do we all share these concerns?
I have more thoughts but there not getting translated to readable format
very well yet. Posting anyway:
Why would there be a distinct role for the chair at all in the pmc
process? It seems to me the chair only has a different role wrt to
communication (ie with the board) or when things go wrong (and when
things go wrong, the chair has a different role because he is also the
ASF Officer, _not_ because he is the chair, hence the difference is
detailed in ASF bylaws rather than our procedures)
Why is it neccessary to set lots of things in stone? Ex: The 72 hours
voting period is unofficial (IIUC), a week limit can be as well. I think
it will always be possible to challenge the validity of the voting
process no matter how tight you hammer it down.
The idea is to take away the need to challenge validity. What we need
here is guidelines and consensus to the maximum extend possible, and
formality to the minimum extend possible. The fact that we failed to get
consensus before does not change that.
just thoughts....
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
>>relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.
>>
>>
>
>do we need that? Why?
>
Because its less ambiguous.
Keep in mind that legalistic prose basically the application of SOC on
natural language. A reduction in ambiguity comes at the expense of
having to work harder to read the document.
:-)
Cheers Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
> From: Leo Simons [mailto:leosimons@apache.org]
>
> On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic
> proposal
> > relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.
>
> do we need that? Why?
All I asked for was text that would go in the charter.
The charter is a legal document, although this reads like
By-Laws. ;P
> > A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> PMC
Good catch. BTW, mere spelling fixes should not require a
full vote--just a notification that it is hapening.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
> relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures.
do we need that? Why?
mostly looks good but IANAL :D
> A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
^^^^^^^^^^
PMC
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 10:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 14:01, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> >>Leo Simons wrote:
> >>
> >>>"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
> >>>purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
> >>>1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
> >>>(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
> >>>
> >>The text (for all practical purposes) is the same as the proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Gotcha! You've fallen into my simplicity trap :D
> >
>
> I was waiting for this reply!
>
> Gotcha! You've fallen into my ratiuonalization trap
was expecting that, too :D
just playing devil's advocate and seeing if there's holes to poke in.
Looks rather airtight to me.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 14:01, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
>>>purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
>>>1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
>>>(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
>>>
>>>
>>The text (for all practical purposes) is the same as the proposal.
>>
>>
>
>Gotcha! You've fallen into my simplicity trap :D
>
I was waiting for this reply!
Gotcha! You've fallen into my ratiuonalization trap
:-D
>
>If
>
>- it is for all practical purposes the same,
>- this documentation is not required to have a watertight legal status,
>- the "layman" form is easier to read and understand,
>
>then why not just write the documentation this way and forget about the
>formal 'look-n-feel'?
>
The board has a legal structure it has put in place together with a set
of policies and procedures through which it can administer itself and a
manner accountable to the general public. Within the structure and
procedures and provisions for the establishment of a sub-structure call
a PMC. These PMCs provide a mechanism for the Board to scale their
activities. The PMC structure is in effect a delegation of the Board
authority to PMC to undertake due-diligence within a particular scope.
The decisions taken by the PMC are decisions that are binding on the
board. For example, if the Avalon PMC votes to release a product, this
represents a liability on the ASF. This action is communicated to board
by the Chair, and documented in a formal voting process.
Now, just for a moment, let's assume that ASF get hit with a law suite
concerning an infringement on patents related to something which was
developed within the Avalon community. Lets assume that Greg and Sam
take a holiday, and were dealing with someone unknown. And let's also
assume that ASF have two options: (a) fight the case, or (b) denial.
If ASF chooses to fight the case, they will very happy to see lots of
formal documentation about processes, and they will be wetting
themselves if see documentation for all of the votes on releases,
attention to due diligence, etc. They will use this information to
demonstrate that our actions have been public, have been part of the
legal structure of the board, are consistent with the Board's legal
practices, etc. In effect ASF will have everything they need to fight on
our behalf.
On the other-hand - what about the denial avenue. If our policies and
procedures are not up to the same standard as the Boards, (e.g. the
textual version) what we are doing is in effect enabling different
interpretations of the rules. The organization making a claim against
ASF will look into the policies and procedures of the Avalon PMC - and
will do so with attention to detail. In such a scenario, the case for
ASF would be weaker because its framework of due-diligence has been
compromised. In such a scenario there is the potential for the ASF to
deny us some level of protection otherwise available to us.
>
>> This
>>is exactly the sort of thing I would image on a web page that descibes
>>the policies and procedures concerning decision making. That same web
>>page would also provide a link to the formal document.
>>
>>
>
>What purpose does the "formal" document then serve?
>
Bottom line - by maintaining policies and procedures in a "crisp" form
(legalistic, SOC, whatever you want to call it), your providing the
Board with a more concrete foundation though which they can protect our
interests with greater confidence and integrity.
>
>I think no-one 'll
>be reading it anyway.
>
>
Hopefully no-one.
;-)
Cheers, Steve.
>cheers,
>
>- Leo
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 14:01, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
> >purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
> >1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
> >(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
>
> The text (for all practical purposes) is the same as the proposal.
Gotcha! You've fallen into my simplicity trap :D
If
- it is for all practical purposes the same,
- this documentation is not required to have a watertight legal status,
- the "layman" form is easier to read and understand,
then why not just write the documentation this way and forget about the
formal 'look-n-feel'?
> This
> is exactly the sort of thing I would image on a web page that descibes
> the policies and procedures concerning decision making. That same web
> page would also provide a link to the formal document.
What purpose does the "formal" document then serve? I think no-one 'll
be reading it anyway.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
>purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
>1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
>(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
>
The text (for all practical purposes) is the same as the proposal. This
is exactly the sort of thing I would image on a web page that descibes
the policies and procedures concerning decision making. That same web
page would also provide a link to the formal document.
>
>Could someone please compare these procedures with the ones the board
>follows (Steve)? The only obvious difference I see is the time scale
>(for the board I believe the time scale is "one board meeting"). But the
>board always follows 1/2 majority vote, no?
>
>
Have already been through the board procedures a coupleof times. Its
difficult because the board procedures focus on classic meeting
requirements - i.e. people and proxies. Its also the full gambit of
issues (membership, positions, responsibilities, etc.) whereas this
thread is dealing with the bootstrap issue of establishing agreement on
how to agree. Within this context my take is basically the same as yours
- the differences appear to be:
* time scale (because votes are not withing the scope of a meeting)
* 2/3 majority on modification of charter or procedures (which just
means that we are placing a higher emphasis on concensus on
potential modification to the charter and bylaws than the board
does - but that's ok too)
* notification is per vote as opposed to minutes of a meeting
On the subject of the desciptive text, I think it a good description of
the process. In fact I think it would be a good idea to put this into a
HTM file or doc source as part of the overall documentation about the
PMC purpose and process.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>cheers,
>
>- Leo
>
>PMC Voting procedures
>---------------------
>(a) Prior to the voting
>
>votes are handled through e-mail. They only take place after that what
>has been voted upon has been discussed and people have had a chance to
>say their says. Votes are clearly identified as being votes by marking
>the subject field of the e-mail with "[VOTE]". This to make the
>difference between a vote and other discussion quite clear.
>
>(b) Representation
>
>A representative part of the PMC needs to vote on a proposal for it to
>be valid. This representative part is called quorum, and quorum needs to
>be at least three (3) and not less than half of the PMC members (50% of
>the PMC members, rounded up to the nearest nonfractional number).
>
>(c) Conventions
>
>Voting on matters placed before the PMC is restricted to the members of
>the PMC. Votes may be expressed in support, opposition, or abstention in
>accordance with the following conventions:
>
> +1 a vote supporting the motion
> +0 a vote of supportive abstention
> -0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
> -1 a vote opposing the motion
>
>A member may vote multiple times. The last vote is the vote that counts.
>
>(d) Qualified Majority Vote
>
>Votes on modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter or on
>modification to or amendment of this document require a 2/3 majority.
>
>(e) Normal Majority Vote
>
>Votes that do not fall under (d) require a 1/2 majority.
>
>(f) Vote Duration
>
>Voting is normally open for one week. If quorum (see (c)) is not met
>within that week, the voting remains open one more week, but no more. As
>soon as quorum has been met in that second week, the vote is closed. If
>quorum is not met after that second week, the vote is considered failed.
>
>(g) After the voting
>
>After a vote is closed, the results of that vote are summarised in an
>e-mail where the subject field is marked with "[VOTE-RESULT]".
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> "layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
> purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
> 1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
> (Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
>
> Could someone please compare these procedures with the ones the board
> follows (Steve)? The only obvious difference I see is the time scale
> (for the board I believe the time scale is "one board meeting"). But the
> board always follows 1/2 majority vote, no?
>
> cheers,
>
> - Leo
>
> PMC Voting procedures
> ---------------------
> (a) Prior to the voting
>
> votes are handled through e-mail. They only take place after that what
> has been voted upon has been discussed and people have had a chance to
> say their says. Votes are clearly identified as being votes by marking
> the subject field of the e-mail with "[VOTE]". This to make the
> difference between a vote and other discussion quite clear.
>
> (b) Representation
>
> A representative part of the PMC needs to vote on a proposal for it to
> be valid. This representative part is called quorum, and quorum needs to
> be at least three (3) and not less than half of the PMC members (50% of
> the PMC members, rounded up to the nearest nonfractional number).
>
> (c) Conventions
>
> Voting on matters placed before the PMC is restricted to the members of
> the PMC. Votes may be expressed in support, opposition, or abstention in
> accordance with the following conventions:
>
> +1 a vote supporting the motion
> +0 a vote of supportive abstention
> -0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
> -1 a vote opposing the motion
>
> A member may vote multiple times. The last vote is the vote that counts.
>
> (d) Qualified Majority Vote
>
> Votes on modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter or on
> modification to or amendment of this document require a 2/3 majority.
>
> (e) Normal Majority Vote
>
> Votes that do not fall under (d) require a 1/2 majority.
>
> (f) Vote Duration
>
> Voting is normally open for one week. If quorum (see (c)) is not met
> within that week, the voting remains open one more week, but no more. As
> soon as quorum has been met in that second week, the vote is closed. If
> quorum is not met after that second week, the vote is considered failed.
>
> (g) After the voting
>
> After a vote is closed, the results of that vote are summarised in an
> e-mail where the subject field is marked with "[VOTE-RESULT]".
I *love* it!
Very respectful of our international community.
Big +1 to write every PMC stuff this way!
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practical
purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
Could someone please compare these procedures with the ones the board
follows (Steve)? The only obvious difference I see is the time scale
(for the board I believe the time scale is "one board meeting"). But the
board always follows 1/2 majority vote, no?
cheers,
- Leo
PMC Voting procedures
---------------------
(a) Prior to the voting
votes are handled through e-mail. They only take place after that what
has been voted upon has been discussed and people have had a chance to
say their says. Votes are clearly identified as being votes by marking
the subject field of the e-mail with "[VOTE]". This to make the
difference between a vote and other discussion quite clear.
(b) Representation
A representative part of the PMC needs to vote on a proposal for it to
be valid. This representative part is called quorum, and quorum needs to
be at least three (3) and not less than half of the PMC members (50% of
the PMC members, rounded up to the nearest nonfractional number).
(c) Conventions
Voting on matters placed before the PMC is restricted to the members of
the PMC. Votes may be expressed in support, opposition, or abstention in
accordance with the following conventions:
+1 a vote supporting the motion
+0 a vote of supportive abstention
-0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
-1 a vote opposing the motion
A member may vote multiple times. The last vote is the vote that counts.
(d) Qualified Majority Vote
Votes on modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter or on
modification to or amendment of this document require a 2/3 majority.
(e) Normal Majority Vote
Votes that do not fall under (d) require a 1/2 majority.
(f) Vote Duration
Voting is normally open for one week. If quorum (see (c)) is not met
within that week, the voting remains open one more week, but no more. As
soon as quorum has been met in that second week, the vote is closed. If
quorum is not met after that second week, the vote is considered failed.
(g) After the voting
After a vote is closed, the results of that vote are summarised in an
e-mail where the subject field is marked with "[VOTE-RESULT]".
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
I've update the PMC-VOTING-PROCEDURES.txt document to eliminate any
potential Chair/Member conflicts.
The very latest version of the document is available here:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-avalon-site/docs/pmc/
Cheers, Steve.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
>>> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
>>> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
>>> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
>>> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
>>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>>> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
>>> binding on the PMC members.
>>
>>
>> Nah, a PMC chair shoudn't even be noticed as a chair, but as a
>> secretary. It should be as hidden as possible. I don't think we need
>> this, it's a call for making chairs appear rude.
>>
>> There is never a need to disallow a vote.
>>
>> I'm pretty strong on this: I would like the PMC chair to be as simple
>> and transparent as possible.
>
>
> +1
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>
>> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
>> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
>> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
>> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
>> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
>> binding on the PMC members.
>
> Nah, a PMC chair shoudn't even be noticed as a chair, but as a
> secretary. It should be as hidden as possible. I don't think we need
> this, it's a call for making chairs appear rude.
>
> There is never a need to disallow a vote.
>
> I'm pretty strong on this: I would like the PMC chair to be as simple
> and transparent as possible.
+1
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
>> relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures. Please not that
>> this does not address lots of things - but that's the point - it is
>> only dealing with the procedures concerning decion making. The
>> interntion is to put this up for commmunity vote and a subsequent PMC
>> vote. For PMC members it is important to note that this text is
>> chnging the voting rights that you have today - so please ready
>> carefully. Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>
>> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>>
>> Definitions
>> ----------
>>
>> Definition 1. PMC
>>
>> All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
>> the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
>> accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
>> 20 November 2002 as detailed with the following document or
>> amendments adopted in accordance with the procedures herein
>> defined.
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
>>
>> Definition 2. PMC Membership
>>
>> The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
>> resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
>
>
> This reflects the present but fails to indicate directions for the
> future. Say, how can somebody come in or go out of a PMC?
This is only addressing the P&P for how decisions are made.
It is not the end-game - just the step on agreeing how top agree.
>
>
>> Definition 3. PMC Chair
>>
>> A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
>> by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC and the
>> broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined under
>> the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
>
>
> Again, this reflects the present, but not the future. I propose to
> have the chair elected every 6 months.
Again - that's a seperate subject that needs to be dealt with but can be
considered indepedently of the subject of rules for agreement.
>
>> Definition 3. PMC Charter
>>
>> The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
>> resolution as detailed under definition [1].
>
>
>> Definition 4. Normal Vote
>>
>> Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
>> of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
>>
>> Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
>>
>> A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
>>
>> (a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
>> by definition [3].
>>
>> (b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
>> established hereunder.
>
>
>
>> PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
>>
>> (a) Preconditions to Voting
>>
>> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
>> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
>> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
>> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
>> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
>> binding on the PMC members.
>
>
> Nah, a PMC chair shoudn't even be noticed as a chair, but as a
> secretary. It should be as hidden as possible. I don't think we need
> this, it's a call for making chairs appear rude.
>
> There is never a need to disallow a vote.
>
> I'm pretty strong on this: I would like the PMC chair to be as simple
> and transparent as possible.
I think the last couple of sentences could be reworked - these is
plently of evidence of badly formed votes that lead to
missunderstandings - and people launching votes within properly
declaring them as such. These are exactly the sort of things real chairs
do. Working suggestions apreciated - I'll thinnk about it as well.
>
>> (b) Quorum Calculations
>>
>> Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
>> less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
>> nearest non-fractional number).
>>
>> (c) Normal Majority Vote
>>
>> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
>> by definition [4] shall require a 50% majority before the vote
>> may be considered as binding, shall be subject to the quorum
>> calculations as defined under Article 1 (b), vote duration
>> as defined by Article 1 (e), and validity shall be subject to
>> reasonable engagement towards actions as defined under the
>> voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the notion of
>> reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
>
>
> Again, we don't need the chair to do anything. Let's cut the legal
> crap as much possible. and let's remove potential friction points.
Don;t see a problem changing this.
>
>> (d) Qualified Majority Vote
>>
>> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
>> as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
>> (rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
>> may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
>>
>> (e) Vote Duration
>>
>> Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
>> initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
>> Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
>> day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
>> a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
>> vote shall be consider as s failed vote.
>
>
> I agree with Paul's vision that 'within' is bad. I see this already
> patched in a later version so I'm cool with this.
>
>> (f) Post-conditions to Voting
>>
>> A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
>> email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
>> the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
>> final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
>> result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
>> shall render the vote null and void.
>
>
> Again, no need for all this bureucratic stuff. When the vote is over,
> somebody will post the count (not only the chair can count, hopefully)
> and tell me, are you really going to wait 60 days before asking what's
> going on?
Already removed.
>
> As I said previously, let's write the smallest possible thing that can
> possibly make sense. And let the chair be perceived as just another
> member with no particular power... otherwise you'll have to spend half
> of your time dissipating the friction that will emerge everytime there
> is no absolute consensus on the chair election (like right now, for
> example)
>
I'll put some more time into it later today.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
> relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures. Please not that this
> does not address lots of things - but that's the point - it is only
> dealing with the procedures concerning decion making. The interntion is
> to put this up for commmunity vote and a subsequent PMC vote. For PMC
> members it is important to note that this text is chnging the voting
> rights that you have today - so please ready carefully.
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>
> Definitions
> ----------
>
> Definition 1. PMC
>
> All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
> the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
> accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
> 20 November 2002 as detailed with the following document or
> amendments adopted in accordance with the procedures herein
> defined.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
>
> Definition 2. PMC Membership
>
> The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
> resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
This reflects the present but fails to indicate directions for the
future. Say, how can somebody come in or go out of a PMC?
> Definition 3. PMC Chair
>
> A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
> by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC and the
> broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined under
> the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
Again, this reflects the present, but not the future. I propose to have
the chair elected every 6 months.
> Definition 3. PMC Charter
>
> The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
> resolution as detailed under definition [1].
> Definition 4. Normal Vote
>
> Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
> of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
>
> Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
>
> A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
>
> (a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
> by definition [3].
>
> (b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
> established hereunder.
> PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
> ---------------------------------
>
> Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
>
> (a) Preconditions to Voting
>
> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
> binding on the PMC members.
Nah, a PMC chair shoudn't even be noticed as a chair, but as a
secretary. It should be as hidden as possible. I don't think we need
this, it's a call for making chairs appear rude.
There is never a need to disallow a vote.
I'm pretty strong on this: I would like the PMC chair to be as simple
and transparent as possible.
> (b) Quorum Calculations
>
> Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
> less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
> nearest non-fractional number).
>
> (c) Normal Majority Vote
>
> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
> by definition [4] shall require a 50% majority before the vote
> may be considered as binding, shall be subject to the quorum
> calculations as defined under Article 1 (b), vote duration
> as defined by Article 1 (e), and validity shall be subject to
> reasonable engagement towards actions as defined under the
> voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the notion of
> reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
Again, we don't need the chair to do anything. Let's cut the legal crap
as much possible. and let's remove potential friction points.
> (d) Qualified Majority Vote
>
> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
> as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
> (rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
> may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
>
> (e) Vote Duration
>
> Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
> initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
> Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
> day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
> a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
> vote shall be consider as s failed vote.
I agree with Paul's vision that 'within' is bad. I see this already
patched in a later version so I'm cool with this.
> (f) Post-conditions to Voting
>
> A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
> email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
> the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
> final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
> result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
> shall render the vote null and void.
Again, no need for all this bureucratic stuff. When the vote is over,
somebody will post the count (not only the chair can count, hopefully)
and tell me, are you really going to wait 60 days before asking what's
going on?
As I said previously, let's write the smallest possible thing that can
possibly make sense. And let the chair be perceived as just another
member with no particular power... otherwise you'll have to spend half
of your time dissipating the friction that will emerge everytime there
is no absolute consensus on the chair election (like right now, for example)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Giacomo Pati wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>
>>Updates:
>>
>> 1. Correction from Leo and Berin including into the text.
>> 2. Dropped text concerning non-notification of vote results.
>> 3. Added sub-paragraph stating the Voting Conventions
>> (i.e. what +1, +-0, and -1 mean). Refer Article 1 (c).
>> 4. Dropped URL reference to board resolution document
>>
>>The revised text is included below in this message and will be
>>available in a few hours on the following URL:
>>
>>
>
>Definition of "PMC Chair" and "PMC Charter" have the same number. It leads
>to confusion at Definition "Qualified Majority Vote" (a).
>
>
Fixed - thanks!
Steve.
>Giacomo
>
>
>
>>http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/PMC-VOTING-PROCEDURES.TXT
>>
>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>>
>>Definitions
>>-----------
>>
>>Definition 1. PMC
>>
>> All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
>> the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
>> accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
>> 20 November 2002.
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
>>
>>Definition 2. PMC Membership
>>
>> The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
>> resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
>>
>>Definition 3. PMC Chair
>>
>> A member of the PMC, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
>> by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC Membership
>> and the broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined
>> under the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
>>
>>Definition 3. PMC Charter
>>
>> The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
>> resolution as detailed under definition [1].
>>
>>Definition 4. Normal Vote
>>
>> Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
>> of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
>>
>>Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
>>
>> A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
>>
>> (a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
>> by definition [3].
>>
>> (b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
>> established hereunder.
>>
>>PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
>>---------------------------------
>>
>>Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
>>
>> (a) Preconditions to Voting
>>
>> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
>> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
>> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
>> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
>> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
>> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
>> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
>> binding on the PMC members.
>>
>> (b) Quorum Calculations
>>
>> Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
>> less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
>> nearest non-fractional number).
>>
>> (c) Voting Conventions
>>
>> Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted
>> to the members of the PMC. Votes may be expressed in
>> support, opposition, or abstention in accordance with the
>> following conventions:
>>
>> +1 a vote supporting the motion
>> +0 a vote of supportive abstention
>> -0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
>> -1 a vote opposing the motion
>>
>> A member may vote multiple times. The last vote registered
>> within the voting period shall stand as the members vote.
>>
>> (d) Normal Majority Vote
>>
>> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
>> by definition [4] shall require a majority of greater than 50%
>> before the vote may be considered as binding, shall be subject
>> to the quorum calculations as defined under Article 1 (b),
>> vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f), and validity shall
>> be subject to reasonable engagement towards actions as defined
>> under the voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the
>> notion of reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
>>
>> (e) Qualified Majority Vote
>>
>> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
>> as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
>> (rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
>> may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
>>
>> (f) Vote Duration
>>
>> Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
>> initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
>> Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
>> day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
>> a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
>> vote shall be consider as a failed vote.
>>
>> (g) Post-conditions to Voting
>>
>> A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
>> email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
>> the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stand as the
>> final authority on vote counts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Giacomo Pati <gi...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Updates:
>
> 1. Correction from Leo and Berin including into the text.
> 2. Dropped text concerning non-notification of vote results.
> 3. Added sub-paragraph stating the Voting Conventions
> (i.e. what +1, +-0, and -1 mean). Refer Article 1 (c).
> 4. Dropped URL reference to board resolution document
>
> The revised text is included below in this message and will be
> available in a few hours on the following URL:
Definition of "PMC Chair" and "PMC Charter" have the same number. It leads
to confusion at Definition "Qualified Majority Vote" (a).
Giacomo
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/PMC-VOTING-PROCEDURES.TXT
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
>
> Definitions
> -----------
>
> Definition 1. PMC
>
> All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
> the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
> accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
> 20 November 2002.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
>
> Definition 2. PMC Membership
>
> The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
> resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
>
> Definition 3. PMC Chair
>
> A member of the PMC, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
> by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC Membership
> and the broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined
> under the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
>
> Definition 3. PMC Charter
>
> The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
> resolution as detailed under definition [1].
>
> Definition 4. Normal Vote
>
> Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
> of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
>
> Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
>
> A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
>
> (a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
> by definition [3].
>
> (b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
> established hereunder.
>
> PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
> ---------------------------------
>
> Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
>
> (a) Preconditions to Voting
>
> A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
> initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
> tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
> establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
> commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
> a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
> provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
> binding on the PMC members.
>
> (b) Quorum Calculations
>
> Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
> less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
> nearest non-fractional number).
>
> (c) Voting Conventions
>
> Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted
> to the members of the PMC. Votes may be expressed in
> support, opposition, or abstention in accordance with the
> following conventions:
>
> +1 a vote supporting the motion
> +0 a vote of supportive abstention
> -0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
> -1 a vote opposing the motion
>
> A member may vote multiple times. The last vote registered
> within the voting period shall stand as the members vote.
>
> (d) Normal Majority Vote
>
> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
> by definition [4] shall require a majority of greater than 50%
> before the vote may be considered as binding, shall be subject
> to the quorum calculations as defined under Article 1 (b),
> vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f), and validity shall
> be subject to reasonable engagement towards actions as defined
> under the voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the
> notion of reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
>
> (e) Qualified Majority Vote
>
> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
> as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
> (rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
> may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
>
> (f) Vote Duration
>
> Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
> initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
> Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
> day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
> a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
> vote shall be consider as a failed vote.
>
> (g) Post-conditions to Voting
>
> A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
> email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
> the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stand as the
> final authority on vote counts.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Updates:
1. Correction from Leo and Berin including into the text.
2. Dropped text concerning non-notification of vote results.
3. Added sub-paragraph stating the Voting Conventions
(i.e. what +1, +-0, and -1 mean). Refer Article 1 (c).
4. Dropped URL reference to board resolution document
The revised text is included below in this message and will be
available in a few hours on the following URL:
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/PMC-VOTING-PROCEDURES.TXT
Cheers, Steve.
------------------------------------------------------------------
APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
Definitions
-----------
Definition 1. PMC
All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
20 November 2002.
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/pmc/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
Definition 2. PMC Membership
The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
Definition 3. PMC Chair
A member of the PMC, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC Membership
and the broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined
under the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
Definition 3. PMC Charter
The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 4. Normal Vote
Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
(a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
by definition [3].
(b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
established hereunder.
PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
---------------------------------
Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
(a) Preconditions to Voting
A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
binding on the PMC members.
(b) Quorum Calculations
Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
nearest non-fractional number).
(c) Voting Conventions
Voting on matters placed before the PMC shall be restricted
to the members of the PMC. Votes may be expressed in
support, opposition, or abstention in accordance with the
following conventions:
+1 a vote supporting the motion
+0 a vote of supportive abstention
-0 a vote of non-supportive abstention
-1 a vote opposing the motion
A member may vote multiple times. The last vote registered
within the voting period shall stand as the members vote.
(d) Normal Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
by definition [4] shall require a majority of greater than 50%
before the vote may be considered as binding, shall be subject
to the quorum calculations as defined under Article 1 (b),
vote duration as defined by Article 1 (f), and validity shall
be subject to reasonable engagement towards actions as defined
under the voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the
notion of reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
(e) Qualified Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
(rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
(f) Vote Duration
Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
vote shall be consider as a failed vote.
(g) Post-conditions to Voting
A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stand as the
final authority on vote counts.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
Overall this is very good, and quite steeped in "legalese".
Nevertheless, there are a couple of minor tweaks I have.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
<snip/>
> (c) Normal Majority Vote
>
> A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
> by definition [4] shall require a 50% majority before the vote
> may be considered as binding, shall be subject to the quorum
> calculations as defined under Article 1 (b), vote duration
> as defined by Article 1 (e), and validity shall be subject to
> reasonable engagement towards actions as defined under the
> voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the notion of
> reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
The definition of majority means more than 50%. Strictly speaking, 50%
means deadlock. It should read "shall require greater than 50% majority"
or "shall require 51% majority".
> (e) Vote Duration
>
> Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7
> days of its
> initiation providing that quorum has been met in
> accordance with
> Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
> day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On
> expiration of
> a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
> vote shall be consider as s failed vote.
^^^
"as a failed vote"
> (f) Post-conditions to Voting
>
> A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
> email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
> the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
> final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
> result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
> shall render the vote null and void.
Generally speaking, I like the post-condition. However it leaves too much
open for the Chair not doing his job. For instance, if all PMC members
except the chair voted for a proposal and the chair voted against the
proposal, all he would have to do is sit on the results for 60 days to
make the proposal void.
I would put the responsibility on the PMC as a whole instead of merely
one person. It puts the power back into the community--preserving
a certain balance of power.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
Excellent. I'd give it a +1 in a vote.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal
relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures. Please not that this
does not address lots of things - but that's the point - it is only
dealing with the procedures concerning decion making. The interntion is
to put this up for commmunity vote and a subsequent PMC vote. For PMC
members it is important to note that this text is chnging the voting
rights that you have today - so please ready carefully.
Cheers, Steve.
APACHE AVALON PMC VOTING PROCEDURES - PROPOSAL
Definitions
----------
Definition 1. PMC
All references to the PMC within this document shall be deemed as
the Apache Avalon Project Management Committee, established in
accordance with the Apache Board resolution of the
20 November 2002 as detailed with the following document or
amendments adopted in accordance with the procedures herein
defined.
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/AVALON-PMC-RESOLUTION.TXT
Definition 2. PMC Membership
The PMC membership as established by the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1]:
Definition 3. PMC Chair
A member of the PCM, as defined in definition [2], duly elected
by the PMC Members to represent the interest of the PMC and the
broader Avalon Community towards the Apache Board as defined under
the PMC resolution and/or adopted amendments (definition [1]).
Definition 3. PMC Charter
The initial charter of the PMC is defined under the Apache Board
resolution as detailed under definition [1].
Definition 4. Normal Vote
Normal votes shall be deemed as any vote not falling within the scope
of a Qualified Majority Vote as defined by definition [5].
Definition 5. Qualified Majority Vote.
A Qualified Majority Vote is a vote applied to any of the following:
(a) Modification to and amendment of the PMC Charter as defined
by definition [3].
(b) modification to or amendment of the policies and procedures
established hereunder.
PMC Policies and Procedures (P&P)
---------------------------------
Article 1, PMC Voting Procedures
(a) Preconditions to Voting
A vote shall be proceeded by prior discussion, normally
initiated by a an email thread commencing by the "[PROPOSAL]"
tag with the message title. Proposal resulting in the
establishment of a vote shall be presented under a thread
commencing with the "[VOTE]" tag. The PMC Chair may disallow
a vote at his/her discretion, providing that justification is
provided. PMC chair decisions on vote integrity shall be
binding on the PMC members.
(b) Quorum Calculations
Quorum on all motions shall be at least three (3) and not
less than 50% of the elected members (rounded up to the
nearest non-fractional number).
(c) Normal Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Normal Vote as defined
by definition [4] shall require a 50% majority before the vote
may be considered as binding, shall be subject to the quorum
calculations as defined under Article 1 (b), vote duration
as defined by Article 1 (e), and validity shall be subject to
reasonable engagement towards actions as defined under the
voting preconditions of Article 1 (a), where the notion of
reasonable shall rest with the PMC Chair.
(d) Qualified Majority Vote
A vote undertaken within the scope of a Qualified Majority Vote
as defined by definition [5] shall require a 2/3 majority
(rounded to the nearest non-fractional number) before the vote
may be considered as binding upon the PMC members.
(e) Vote Duration
Any vote conducted by the PMC may be closed within 7 days of its
initiation providing that quorum has been met in accordance with
Article 1 (b). A vote not meeting quorum during the initial 7
day period shall default to a 14 day duration. On expiration of
a 14 day vote duration, if quorum has not been achieved, the
vote shall be consider as s failed vote.
(f) Post-conditions to Voting
A vote shall be concluded by a result announcement presented by
email under a thread commencing by the "[VOTE-RESULT]" tag with
the message title. The PMC Chair count shall stands as the
final authority on vote counts. Non announcement of a vote
result by the chair within 60 days of the initiation of a vote
shall render the vote null and void.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> >Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
> >to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
> >
> >
>
> Thats because we have the same private agenda.
> Community empowerment.
Ok, Lets #1, put this proposal (with your mods) up for vote,
and #2 incorporate it into the Charter.
Can I get you to write it up in a manner that will be incorporated
into the Charter and then post that section to the list for VOTE?
I'd do it myself, but I have another work related proposal I have
to finish up. I also don't have CVS access while at work--I just
got my other machine, so I will see what I can do with it.
>
> ;-)
>
> Steve.
>
> >I also like the qualification of not allowing a VOTE unless it is
> >previously been a PROPOSAL.
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
> >>
> >>Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
> >>>very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
> >>>to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
> >>>of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
> >>>
> >>>* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
> >>charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>+1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
> >>> up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
> >>> meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
> >>> have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
> >>> willing to vote on the proposal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>+1
> >>
> >>In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
> >>sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also,
> >>under chair
> >>rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right
> >>to disallow
> >>a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
> >>only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
> >>that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
> >>>the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose
> >>something
> >>- and yes, I'll get to it!
> >>
> >>One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would
> be strict
> >>about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not
> >>be allowed
> >>if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
> >>discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote
> >>unless (i) it
> >>is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
> >>[VOTE-RESULT].
> >>
> >>Cheers, Steve.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--
> >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>
> >>>
> ><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>
> >>
> ><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >
> >Stephen J. McConnell
> >
> >OSM SARL
> >digital products for a global economy
> >mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
> >http://www.osm.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
>to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
>
>
Thats because we have the same private agenda.
Community empowerment.
;-)
Steve.
>I also like the qualification of not allowing a VOTE unless it is
>previously been a PROPOSAL.
>
>
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>
>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
>>>very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
>>>to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
>>>of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
>>>
>>>* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
>>charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
>>
>>
>>
>>>* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>>
>>>* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
>>> up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
>>> meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
>>> have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
>>> willing to vote on the proposal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>+1
>>
>>In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
>>sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also,
>>under chair
>>rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right
>>to disallow
>>a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
>>only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
>>that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
>>
>>
>>
>>>This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
>>>the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose
>>something
>>- and yes, I'll get to it!
>>
>>One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would be strict
>>about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not
>>be allowed
>>if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
>>discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote
>>unless (i) it
>>is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
>>[VOTE-RESULT].
>>
>>Cheers, Steve.
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>
>>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>
>>
><ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>Stephen J. McConnell
>
>OSM SARL
>digital products for a global economy
>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 15:15, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
> to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
+1 too. I like (and trust you guys are better than me than hammering out
the exact wording, but I'll help anyway :D)
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
Steve! I think we have something here! I like your modifications
to everything listed below. You have my +1 on this.
I also like the qualification of not allowing a VOTE unless it is
previously been a PROPOSAL.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> >I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
> >very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
> >to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
> >of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
> >
> >* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
> >
>
> One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
> charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
>
> >
> >
> >* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
> >
>
> +1
>
> >
> >* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
> > up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
> > meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
> > have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
> > willing to vote on the proposal.
> >
>
> +1
>
> In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
> sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also,
> under chair
> rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right
> to disallow
> a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
> only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
> that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
>
> >
> >
> >This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
> >the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
> >
>
> This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose
> something
> - and yes, I'll get to it!
>
> One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would be strict
> about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not
> be allowed
> if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
> discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote
> unless (i) it
> is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
> [VOTE-RESULT].
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] PMC Resolution Voting Process
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>I am putting this in another thread because Charter.txt is now
>very long and we have two types of voting on the table. I want
>to separate them as much as possible. Below is my understanding
>of the PMC voting process as of the last discussion:
>
>* Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC.
>
One requested modification. A vote the relates to a change to the
charter and/or policies and procedures shall require a 2/3 majority.
>
>
>* PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week.
>
+1
>
>* If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open
> up to two (2) weeks until quorum is met. If quorum cannot be
> meet in that time period, the resolution has considered to
> have failed. It can be brought up again when more people are
> willing to vote on the proposal.
>
+1
In terms of policy and procedure test - I suggest dropping the last
sentence but including this as an explanitory note. Also, under chair
rights and privaliges, the chair should be granted the right to disallow
a vote if he/she considers the motion inappropriate (this covers not
only things like reoccuring votes for the same thing, but also votes
that are not within the concern of the PMC - e.g. technical issues).
>
>
>This voting process is for PMC related issues. That includes
>the legal documents (resolutions, charter, by-laws, etc.).
>
This needs to be worked up a bit more - yes, I know - propose something
- and yes, I'll get to it!
One more thing - I think that at the level of the PMC would be strict
about seperating [PROPOSAL]s from [VOTE]s. A vote should not be allowed
if (a) it has not been the subject of a prior proposal - i.e.
discussion, and (b) cannot be considered as a binding vote unless (i) it
is raised under the [VOTE] tag, and (ii) the chair has issued a
[VOTE-RESULT].
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>