Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/0.4 grimoire approval "issue vote"

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/0.4 grimoire approval "issue vote"
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:11:03 -0700

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 12:56:29PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Jun 27, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net [seth AT swoolley.homeip.net] wrote:
> > Restating my motion for clarity:
> >
> > Stable grimoire release can be approved one of two ways.
> >
> > Way one is for a unanimous vote of the following team members:
> > Project Lead
> > Grimoire Lead
> > Grimoire QA Assistant
> >
> > Way two is for a vote of the General Leads as per the existing issue
> > vote procedures, however this is expected to be done only in the case of
> > an absense of one of the above team members (although, technically an
> > issue vote may be brought for any reason).
> >
> > This shall be entered into the record of Administrative Policies and
> > effective upon its passing.
>
> When this vote is called I'll vote -1 on it, because:
>
> The current policy is that the Component Lead over Grimoire (Arwed) makes
> the decisions for his component, but can be overruled by an Issue Vote.
> All we really need to do to make a release right now in his absence is an
> Issue Vote. If that's what we want to do, we can call that vote without
> needing to implement new policy. Our stated goal in setting up this voting
> system was to provide a way to move things forward if discussion wasn't
> doing it, but to my knowledge there's been no discussion of this one prior
> to a motion to amend policy.

A stated goal of the policy is to have redundancy. That said, any issue
can be taken to the floor for a vote, such as a vote to release the
grimoire. All this does is solidify and explicitly specify what could
already be done. I think for the sake of clarity and transparency it
should be specified. Its obvious this doesnt change anything, so theres
no reason to vote no on it other than because it adds an explicit special
case to our policy.


-Andrew

--
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt | acedit at armory.com | astitt at sourcemage.org |
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page