Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

On Apr 17, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 20:06 -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > (line 129)
> > Developer Removal Voting Process:
> > - General and Lead Developer Removal Votes WILL proceed per the Issue
> >   Voting...
> 
> I read this as the removal of a General or Lead developer, not the
> calling of a removal by a general or lead developer.

Right there the use of "general and lead..." is talking about removing
general and lead developers, but if you dereference "the issue voting
process" it points to, you find that any developer can bring a motion for a
vote:

> > (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.

> 
> > > >    developer can move for a veto
> > 
> > (line 136)
> > - The General Developers MAY veto any Developer Removal Votes...
> 
> I took this as a veto of a successful vote to remove but I found the
> line I missed above that one:  -Successful or failed.....

Yeah, all of those are supposed to be written to work either direction.

I know it may feel like spaghetti code tracing some scenarios, but rather
than try to spell them all out explicitly I went for giving the framework
to let any occurence get routed through unambiguously to the end.

Attachment: pgpAf1i7Ma_qJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature