Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Project Organization Policy Vote

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Project Organization Policy Vote
  • Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:03:21 -0500

On Apr 26, David Brown [dmlb2000 AT gmail.com] wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > As Jeremy Blosser (emrys) has requested a vote of the Team Leads if his
> > proposal (attached) is seconded (it was, by David Kowis
> > (dkowis/kittah)), we have here a vote. :)
> >
> > I believe Jeremy (correct me if I'm wrong) would like this vote to
> > follow the guidelines attached, which means:
> > * All votes must be GPG signed by a valid key listed on
> > http://www.sourcemage.org/keysigning
> > * Only Team Leads have a binding vote
> > * Other developers may post a vote, but it is advisory only
> > * Votes go to the mailing list (sm-discuss) with a +1 (yes) ,+/-0
> > (abstain) ,-1 (no)
> > * At least 51% of the Leads must vote for the vote to be valid
> > * At least 51% of the voting Leads must vote +1 for the issue to pass
> > * Non-Leads may veto the process after the vote has finished
> > * At least 51% of all developers (Lead + General) must vote
> > * At least 67% of the voting developers must vote +1 for the veto to
> > pass
>
> I think 'Simple Majority' or 'Two-thirds Majority' [0] should be the
> terms used instead of raw percentages since if it's 50.5% for and
> 49.5% against in a 'simple majority' case that would pass...
>
> Unless 51% is actually what you want...

Heh, why didn't you point this out before we got this far?

51% and 67% were the definitions used. If the TLs are ok with those,
that's what's there.

Attachment: pgpPtoqOpxWDI.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page