[SM-Discuss] Developer removal proposal
eric at sandall.us
Wed Apr 28 00:58:15 EDT 2010
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:43:39 +0900
flux <flux at sourcemage.org> wrote:
> Eric Sandall (eric at sandall.us) wrote [10.04.28 13:04]:
> > Per http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Voting_Policy, the
> > following developers are up for being seconded for removal:
> > Colin Childs
> > Dale E. Edmons
> > Daniel Goller
> > Ivan Lezhnjov Jr.
> > John Harding
> > Lalo Martins
> > Lubomir Blaha
> > Paul Mahon
> > Pieter Lenaerts
> > Note the following:
> > * Automatic Removal Votes (triggered by inactivity as specified in
> > the Developer Organization document) automatically pass unless a
> > simple majority (greater than 50% of all binding votes cast) vote
> > against the removal.
> > * An Automatic Removal Vote vote must be proposed and seconded
> > as per the Issue Voting Process, but no voting will take place
> > unless a vote to keep the developer is entered, then voting will
> > proceed as normal.
> > * All General and Lead Developers (other than the Developer being
> > voted upon) are counted as having voted unless a normal vote is
> > required as described above.
> > -sandalle
> I just realized that this is in conflict (at least according to my
> interpretation, which may be incorrect) with what is stated in the
> Developer Organization:
> • are automatically nominated and seconded for a removal vote after
> one year of inactivity (defined as no committed changes to any part
> of the project's source code or documentation repositories (including
> web sites)).
> : http://sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developer_Organization
> So we have one document (the voting policy) which states that
> automatic removal requires us to nominate and second as normal, while
> another document (the developer organization) states that the
> nominating and seconding are automatic? Also, according to the voting
> policy, the removal vote automatically passes unless it is voted down
> by a simple majority (rather than passing if voted up). If the
> nominating and seconding were automatic (as claimed by the developer
> organization page), then I think we wouldn't want the vote to
> automatically pass unless voted down.
> So which of these documents is "more correct", and which needs to be
> altered/updated to be brought in sync with the other? I'm leaning for
> the voting policy to be more accurate (in general), but what do you
> all think? Am I just misinterpreting what's there somehow?
I believe the Developer Organization to be more accurate (that inactive
developers are automatically nominated and seconded), but for this vote
we will go for the less intrusive method (that they are automatically
nominated, but must be seconded).
To avoid having to vote, I like the Voting Policy method the best.
After this round I will put up at least one Issue Vote to clarify this
rule and the other question you had earlier. ;)
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20100427/f740897a/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss