Public SourceMage Discussion List

[seth AT swoolley.homeip.net]

Now I know I'm not a lead anymore, but under the old rules, I'd still be
able to second this, so I do so.

Seth

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 09:21:13PM -0700, Andrew Stitt wrote:
> 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
>