Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew Stitt <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:37:36PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> 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.

I cant think of a single instance when we've voted on policy change,
and as far as I know our voting policys were only intended for lead
votes. At least, that was my understanding of that document since it
was created, all the input I gave for it was framed under that
understanding. Historically issues and policys have been decided by some
sort of rough consensus and eventually moved to resolution (or tabling on
contentious stuff) by the PL. There really isnt any formal policy for
that either, which is what this adds, I think thats a good thing.
However this presents a chicken and egg problem, how do we enact a new
project organization policy when theres no policy on how to enact it
(other than rough consensus (which we seem to have attained)).

That being said, I havent voted on this yet because I want to know how
people besides the leads and feel about it. It obviously effects all
the developers so its important to me that people agree with it before
I vote yes on it. Im somewhat disappointed with the lack of response
after Jeremy's initial posting, but assumed that was silent agreement,
and that most people arent too interested in politics. Im encouraged
by people voting +1 on it though. However I'd rather be certain the majority
feels a certain way than assume they do.

So, I motion that we abort the current vote and use the team lead voting
guidelines[0] to vote for (or against) the new project organization policy
proposal. I'd rather we be certain as a community that the majority has
at least glanced at the proposal and agree with it before enacting it.

-Andrew

[0] http://www.sourcemage.org/TeamLeadVotingProcess

Attachment: pgp54SeMt0eI0.pgp
Description: PGP signature