Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

--- Begin Message ---

• From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
• To: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
• Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization
• Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:06:12 -0500

On Apr 17, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> Are you adding this if not then that is not what I read in your two
> attachments.

No, I'm not adding it... the below references are all from the
policy_voting doc:

> > 1) any developer (lead or not) moves that a lead be removed

(line 129)
Developer Removal Voting Process:
- General and Lead Developer Removal Votes WILL proceed per the Issue
Voting...
(line 108)
Issue Voting Process:
- While we prefer to operate based on general consensus, votes are at times
necessary to moves issues to resolution. Therefore, any General or Lead
Developer MAY move for any issue to be put to a vote.

> > 2) any developer seconds this motion

(line 112)
- Motions for votes MUST be seconded within one week of being made.

> > 3) there is a vote of the leads only

(line 119)
- Lead Developers MUST cast a vote.

> > 4) if the leads don't vote to remove via a super majority (67%), any

(line 132)
- Removal Votes require a super (67%) majority to pass.

> > developer can move for a veto

(line 136)
- The General Developers MAY veto any Developer Removal Votes...

> > 5) the motion to veto is seconded

(line 141)
- Veto votes WILL proceed per the Issue Voting Process described above...

> > 6) there is a vote of the non-leads only

(line 144)
- Lead Developers MUST NOT vote.
- General Developers MAY cast a binding vote.

> > 7) if the (non-lead) developers vote via a super majority (67%) to remove

(line 148)
- Vetos require a super (67%) majority to pass.

> > the Lead, they are removed

(line 149)
- Veto votes are final.

> Also if your two document are summaries then I would want to see the
> whole proposal in it's current completed form as I don't remember seeing
> a full proposal in the previous discussion. And please don't tell me
> it's on the wiki as half the time I can't find what I am looking for on
> it.

That's not what I meant, I'm going to respond to this on the ML because I
don't want other people to be confused by that.


Thanks.

> CuZnDragon
> Robin Cook
>
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 19:15 -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > Any lead can be removed by a super majority vote of regular developers.
> > The process is defined as:
> >
> > 1) any developer (lead or not) moves that a lead be removed
> > 2) any developer seconds this motion
> > 3) there is a vote of the leads only
> > 4) if the leads don't vote to remove via a super majority (67%), any
> > developer can move for a veto
> > 5) the motion to veto is seconded
> > 6) there is a vote of the non-leads only
> > 7) if the (non-lead) developers vote via a super majority (67%) to remove
> > the Lead, they are removed
> >
> > Yes, this is a lot of steps, but it's also completely defined and
> > therefore
> > not very subject to whims.
> >
> > If people think we need to establish a regular renewal vote for general
> > leads we can look at it, I started to write that but didn't want us to get
> > buried in an election every month. You also get into weird logistics
> > about
> > how to handle a component lead who fails their regular lead revote, or if
> > component leads have both votes each year or just one, etc.
>

Attachment: pgp8GAA76ZTAt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Attachment: pgpEroYk6tsad.pgp
Description: PGP signature