[SM-Discuss] Project Organization Policy Vote
Jeremy Blosser (emrys)
jblosser-smgl at firinn.org
Wed Apr 26 17:27:27 EDT 2006
On Apr 26, David Brown [dmlb2000 at gmail.com] wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) <jblosser-smgl at firinn.org> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, David Brown [dmlb2000 at gmail.com] wrote:
> > > On 4/26/06, Eric Sandall <eric at sandall.us> wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > As Jeremy Blosser (emrys) has requested a vote of the Team Leads if his
> > > > proposal (attached) is seconded (it was, by David Kowis
> > > > (dkowis/kittah)), we have here a vote. :)
> > > >
> > > > I believe Jeremy (correct me if I'm wrong) would like this vote to
> > > > follow the guidelines attached, which means:
> > > > * All votes must be GPG signed by a valid key listed on
> > > > http://www.sourcemage.org/keysigning
> > > > * Only Team Leads have a binding vote
> > > > * Other developers may post a vote, but it is advisory only
> > > > * Votes go to the mailing list (sm-discuss) with a +1 (yes) ,+/-0
> > > > (abstain) ,-1 (no)
> > > > * At least 51% of the Leads must vote for the vote to be valid
> > > > * At least 51% of the voting Leads must vote +1 for the issue to pass
> > > > * Non-Leads may veto the process after the vote has finished
> > > > * At least 51% of all developers (Lead + General) must vote
> > > > * At least 67% of the voting developers must vote +1 for the veto to pass
> > >
> > > I think 'Simple Majority' or 'Two-thirds Majority'  should be the
> > > terms used instead of raw percentages since if it's 50.5% for and
> > > 49.5% against in a 'simple majority' case that would pass...
> > >
> > > Unless 51% is actually what you want...
> > Heh, why didn't you point this out before we got this far?
> > 51% and 67% were the definitions used. If the TLs are ok with those,
> > that's what's there.
> So is this going to be >=51% and >=67%? because simple majority and
> two-thirds majority are defined by most standards as >1/2 and >2/3
> Just little things in the terminology I noticed is all...
It probably is a bug, but resolving it would be in the TLs hands now. They
could either vote it down as written and ask that be fixed or ok it as-is,
after which anyone could propose that the doc be amended.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20060426/a95c8236/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss