On Dec 20, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 18:04, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
That's how it works.
No, that's not how it works.
Isn't it a bit scary that two of the most respected members of ASF
don't agree
on how ASF operates "when push come to shove" ?
No, it only proves that we aren't machines. The exact details of how
it all works are not written down because people are expected to use
their own judgement to handle exceptions gracefully and make the process
more fluid when there is clear agreement. For example, most of the PMC
decisions are not made by vote -- PMC members simply go along with what
the other members are doing until there is a disagreement, and the
formal
process only kicks in when consensus is unclear or when the legal risk
requires that a formal decision be recorded (as in release votes).
In any case, the board does have the ability to delegate additional
powers to an officer when that is believed to be good for the ASF.
The process can also change over time if needed. However, I think
we should operate on the principle that the power to make decisions
is vested in the committees, and it is only the power to implement
those decisions that the officers can wield as needed.
If an officer believes that a release package should be "vetoed"
for legal reasons, then they should inform infrastructure to remove
the release from distribution. However, that doesn't change the
fact that a release was cut, a version number assigned, and a decision
made by the project to release. It may seem like a small twist on
semantics, but I believe it to be an important one.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
