Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Seth Woolley <swoolley AT panasas.com>
  • To: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • Cc: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] project organization
  • Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:56:25 -0700

Eric Sandall wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:

On Apr 17, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) [jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org] wrote:

That's the summary of this proposal, and I think it's accurate. The full
docs are attached.

A couple of things have come up in discussion:

- A fatal flaw, if we have eg 23 developers and 20 of them are leads and 3
of them are not, 2 of the 3 non-leads have all the veto power. To fix
this, I'm amending the proposal to allow leads to vote in vetos. The
intent of the veto is to allow a super majority of the full project to
overrule the leads, so I think this is appropriate.


While this would mean that if general developers are in the minority
they won't get to dictate decisions for the majority, doesn't it
remove the general developers' veto power by adding the Lead votes
(whom have presumably already voted in a way that the general
developers did not want)?

Perhaps adding a clause that veto votes require at least 51% of the
total number of developers (lead + general) to be valid, though this
means that if the general developers are at all in the minority no
vetos would ever pass, which is almost the same issue as above.

This would be true if leads voted 100% the same way. The idea is that it may be controversial and 51% of leads vote for something -- when you add in general developers who may be 100% opposed to that, you can enact a veto. A veto isn't supposed to be able to overturn any possible decision, just the narrow and controversial ones. Typically a body can immune itself from a veto in code, like how congress can override a veto by passing an item by supermajority. (That's normally how vetos are done where you have a huge variation in the number of persons in the balancing powers (president versus the entire congress), which we don't need because we are already honoring one person one vote, but merely increasing the franchise when needed).

Seth



- Removal Votes require a super majority to pass. This is so that Leads
can't just easily throw out a new elected Lead they don't like that the
General Developers have elected. However, it means that if someone comes
up for a removal vote through inactivity, it would still take a super
majority to confirm their removal. To fix this I'm amending the proposal
so that the automated removal votes *pass* unless a simple majority votes
opposed to them.


Sounds good.

Thanks!

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFERRltHXt9dKjv3WERAkl6AJ41tx6Z0+IYIW9qE0JhBzW5c2AcTgCePart
FQ5c+5hKe6K+ViSIqwS+2os=
=Ynul
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss


--
Seth Alan Woolley
Software Engineer
Accelerating Time to Results(TM) with Clustered Storage

www.panasas.com
swoolley AT panasas.com
510-608-4382




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page