Re: PMC votes ( Re: [Vote] Phoenix 4.0.3 release.)

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> btw, this is a PMC vote is it not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> We should mark it as such I think.
>>
>
> A release vote is a PMC vote, no matter how it's marked.
> It can be marked as such, but there is no gain in having to do so. 
> Only PMC members votes are counted anyway.
>
>> And do it on the PMC list.
>
>
> I disagree. There is no need for secrecy. We should not use that list 
> if not for secrecy reasons.
>
>> There are members subscribed there that are not active here.
>
>
> If it's true that Avalon PMC members are only on that list, IMNSHO 
> this it wrong. We should have that all subscribed to the PMC should be 
> also subscribed to the dev list.


If you want something to be considered as ratified by the PMC then the 
PMC have to vote on it on the PMC list - otherwise its not a PMC vote. 
 Its not a secrecy issue - its a procedural point. If a PMC member is 
subscribed to the PMC list and active and attentive to PMC issues - 
there is nothing that states that the member must also follow day to day 
procedings on the dev list.  Secondly, a PMC member has to right to 
voice a different opinion as a PMC member as compared with their role as 
a committer.  I really does not matter if that makes sence or not - what 
matters is that a PMC member has responsibilites over and above a 
committer - and those responsibiliites may result in a different opinions.

Please don't interprit this as Steve saying he will vote different on 
the PMC list as compared to the committer list - all I'm saying is that 
if your going to do something - di it properly based on the structure 
that has been put in place.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.osm.net