Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Apr 17, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> I have no problem with most of it except having no binding vote in the
> issues voting if not a lead developer.

This is the way it is today (no one gets a binding vote in non-lead
elections except for the leads) and is typical of most representative-type
political systems.  ie, depending on where you live you typically elect
your representative and then they go off and vote on your behalf.  If they
do a good job you keep electing them, if not you throw them out.

> CuZnDragon
> Robin Cook
> 
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:59 -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > On Apr 17, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) [jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org] wrote:
> > > - there would be a process for the general developer population to veto
> > >   anything the leads decided
> > 
> > Blah, that's not entirely correct.  The proposal identifies a way for the
> > general developers to veto all aspects of who is leading things and any
> > votes by the leads that would modify how the voting policy and project
> > organization itself works.  There's no provision to veto other day-to-day
> > issue votes directly, but being able to veto who is doing the voting
> > accomplishes the same thing over time.

Attachment: pgpDi6VOP7HSa.pgp
Description: PGP signature