incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <>
Subject Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 19:16:03 GMT
-----Original Message-----

From: Benson Margulies <>
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:56 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [META DISCUSS] talking about the overall state of this PMC

>> If you think it's clear in either direction, call a VOTE. I think that's
>> the only demonstrable way to suggest what's clear and what's not.
>Please see several emails from Greg and others on the board@ list
>recently pointing out the inappropriateness of overuse of votes.

And please see the last 10 years of Apache policy regarding what consensus
means, and what it doesn't.

I'm sick of your sweeping statements -- be direct. You have a problem with
my proposal -- good -- no matter how many "go off this list" or "bugger
or "take your proposal" elsewhere emails you send, the point is, I've done
the work; have mentored projects, and have done a lot more than simply talk
about what to get done and what not to get done in the past N years
of the Incubator. So yes, I care just as much as you do, and I've done the
work to document my care.

>If even *one* person strongly objects, there is no consensus. There is
>a strong handful of people who strongly object. So there's no
>consensus. This isn't a majority issue.

It doesn't matter if it's a majority or not issue. You made a sweeping

I think it's clear, though, that _this committee_ does not believe in
the 'direct-to-PMC' model, so anyone interested in that alternative
should talk elsewhere and/or with the board, as per Ant's message.

How_on_Earth can you get a gauge on what 170+ people believe, or what they
I suggested calling a VOTE, I wouldn't even know what the binding results
of the VOTE would be -- but at least it's measurable and quantifiable
of declarative which is the language that I see you prefer using.

>I don't uniquely own the role of testing consensus. If you want to
>send a message that tests consensus on your proposal, or more
>accurately tests consensus on the idea of asking the board for
>permission to do a trial run of your proposal, go right ahead. I feel
>confident that it will attract enough firm -1 votes to demonstrate a
>lack of consensus in favor of the idea.

One the one hand you want to make thinly veiled statements about what
power you have as VP; on the other you pull back and claim what roles
you don't own. So, which one is it, Benson?

I for one am also sick of the whoo hah hah, and I've given up that this
committee will decide much of anything. That's not a slight to the
which contains some of the most well respected (by me and others) members
the ASF. It's more a slight to the ridiculous model that the IPMC has
and the thumbing its nose at the traditional mantras of the ASF that it
(e.g., the utter uselessness and destruction that umbrella projects, once
at, create).


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message