Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

On Apr 26, Robin Cook [rcook AT wyrms.net] wrote:
> Should use the current voting procedures until the new ones are voted
> on.

To my knowledge the 'current voting procedures' for "issue" votes are
basically: what the PL says, and sometimes he asks the TLs to vote.  Note
last week when he changed the Social Contract and just told people about
it.  The other major example I can think of was the TL vote on the gpg/hash
debacle.  Historically the PL/etc. have declined calls for general votes on
anything that wasn't an election.

This lack of real definition is not a particulary good place to be, and
it's one reason for proposing this set of changes.  I didn't want these to
just go in based on PL declaration or anything though, which is why when I
proposed it I asked for a full lead vote and allowance for a veto.  I used
the process defined in these changes because it was fully defined and
available.  Honestly I expected there might be some conversation about that
when I made the suggestion, I didn't expect it to be the final word.  But
no one said anything opposed, so I guess it went forward that way.

That all having been said, I don't personally have a solid opinion about
how this should go beyond that I want the project to be OK with it.  My
(non-binding) .02 are that the best way to do that is up to the PL and TLs,
so I leave it to them.

> CuZnDragon
> Robin Cook
> 
> On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:58 -0700, Eric Sandall 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
> > 
> > -sandalle

Attachment: pgprIopg7uMaT.pgp
Description: PGP signature