Re: [PMC:VOTE] PMC Voting Process

Leo Simons wrote:

> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>> I can probably be talked into this.  And towards this end - the 
>> biggest issue I have
>> with the proposed text concerns the introductory statements:
>>
>>  > This document details how the Avalon PMC has agreed to handle
>>  > voting. Note that in the case of any conflict between this
>>  > document and official ASF policy (be it in the form of bylaws,
>>  > board resolutions, ASF officer decisions, or something similar),
>>  > the official ASF policy is always the policy followed.
>>
>> My problem with the above is that (a) the ASF does not have a voting 
>> policy, (b) the paragraph simply introduces unnecessary fuzz - the 
>> rational fallbacks are (a) the Chair, or (b) the Board.  In 
>> discussion to-date, members of the PMC have expressed a reluctance to 
>> assign any responsibility to the Chair (even though the Chair is 
>> tasked by the Board with the management of the Avalon Project) - but 
>> ignoring this anomaly, a fallback to ASF policy is simply saying "if 
>> you can find something wrong with Avalon policies then just revent to 
>> ASF policies" - and that has two fundamental faults - (a) 
>> corresponding ASF policies don't exist, and (b) even if they did, the 
>> Avalon policies should take precedence over and above a general ASF 
>> policy.
>
>
> hey Steve, 


Morning Leo!

:-)

>
>
> Avalon ASF Officer == Avalon PMC Chair. The Chair is an officer of the 
> Foundation and that's why he needs to overrule -- added 
> responsibility. Not because he "chairs" meetings.


Hey I'm not disagreeing.

>
> (a) -- true.
>
> (b) -- I don't think a PMC can 'overrule' a board resolution or 
> something like that, nor can project guidelines. So I disagree here.


Forget about overruling - thing about the context of Avalon PMC is a 
specialization of AFC.

    public Decision vote( Issue issue )
    {
        try
        {
            return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY );
        }
        catch( Throwable e )
        {
            return super.vote( proposal );
        }
     }

Problem with the above is that you will get a compile time error - there 
is no generic supertime mechanisms to fallback too - a.k.a. 
NoSuchMethodException.

Instead what you need is explicit semantics:

    public Decision vote( Issue issue )
    {
        try
        {
            return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY );
        }
        catch( ScopeException e )
        {
            throw new PMCException( "Issue is outside of PMC scope" );
        }
        catch( ProceduralException e )
        {
            Context context = board.getContext( issue, PMC_POLICY );
            if( context != null )
            {
                return vote( issue, PMC_POLICY, context );
            }
            else
            {
                final String result =
                  "Resolution cannot be achived within the context of the
                   current PMC procedues. Direct interaction with the ASF
                   Board is recommended.";
                  throw new PMCRuntimeException( result );
            }
        }
    }

Now think bout the above for a moment - either an issue is resolved or 
it isn't.  The process is explicit.  It the Avalon PMC doesn't handle 
something then Avalon PMC explicity defers it the the Board - OR - 
rejects the issue.  And all that is doing is protecting our community 
from ourselves when the SHTF.

>
>> Greg - can you confirm or refute the above?
>> Leo - do you think we rework the paragraph in question?
>
>
> sure! We could even drop it completely and I'd still be quite ok.


Possible - give me the weekend to go back over tbe text.

Cheers, Steve.


-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.osm.net