Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

I know Eric is busy with finals, so as APL I'm calling for a vote on the
below amendment, as a more specific version of the suggested amendment
proposed earlier today.

Per the new policy[0], Leads should reply to the ML with signed +/- 1 or 0
votes.  Other developers may vote as well, but only Lead votes are binding.
The vote will last until 1PM CDT May 12th, or until a majority approves or
rejects it, whichever comes first.  This vote affects the voting policy, so
any lead or other developer can move for a veto at the end of the vote,
regardless of the results.

[0] - Not yet on the web site, but we're working on having it there today.

On May 05, Jaka Kranjc [jakakranjc AT email.si] wrote:
> Seconded.
> 
> On Friday 05 May 2006 15:53, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > I move for the following amendment:
> >
> > diff -dupr approved/policy_voting amend1/policy_voting
> > --- approved/policy_voting      Tue Apr 18 11:34:53 2006
> > +++ amend1/policy_voting        Fri May  5 08:49:22 2006
> > @@ -83,8 +83,9 @@ Lead Voting Process:
> >    of the vote to be valid.
> >  - Lead Developers MUST cast a vote.
> >  - General Developers MAY cast a vote.
> > -- 51% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the vote is invalid.
> > -- Votes require a simple (51%) majority to pass.
> > +- More than 50% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the vote is
> > +  invalid.
> > +- Votes require a simple majority (greater than 50% of all votes cast) to
> > pass. - If no quorom or majority is achieved, and the vote is for a 
> > Project
> > or Component lead, and the incumbent is a valid candidate, they are
> > reelected. If there is no incumbent or they have not accepted a 
> > nomination,
> > the position @@ -119,9 +120,10 @@ Issue Voting Process:
> >  - Lead Developers MUST cast a vote.
> >  - General Developers MAY cast a vote, but their votes are advisory only
> > (i.e., non-binding).
> > -- 51% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the vote is invalid and
> > -  fails.
> > -- Votes require a simple (51%) majority (of all binding votes cast) to
> > pass. +- More than 50% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the 
> > vote
> > is +  invalid and fails.
> > +- Votes require a simple majority (greater than 50% of all binding votes
> > cast) +  to pass.
> >  - Motions which pass are considered active immediately upon the majority
> > vote reaching the Mailing List.
> >
> > @@ -129,10 +131,12 @@ Developer Removal Voting Process:
> >  - General and Lead Developer Removal Votes WILL proceed per the Issue
> > Voting Process described above, with the following exceptions:
> >    - The Developer in question MUST NOT vote.
> > -  - Removal Votes require a super (67%) majority to pass.
> > +  - Removal Votes require a super majority (greater than 2/3 of all
> > binding +    votes cast) to pass.
> >    - Exception to the above: Automatic Removal Votes (triggered by
> > inactivity as specified in the Developer Organization document)
> > automatically pass unless -    a simple (51%) majority vote against the
> > removal.
> > +    a simple majority (greater than 50% of all binding votes cast) vote
> > against +    the removal.
> >  - Successful or failed removal votes MAY be vetoed by the entire group of
> >    Developers.
> >  - If an Automated Removal Vote fails fails, the Developer in question 
> > WILL
> > be @@ -149,7 +153,8 @@ Veto Process:
> >    - For Removal Votes, the Developer in question MUST NOT vote.
> >    - Lead Developers MAY vote, but are not required to.
> >    - General Developers MAY cast a binding vote.
> > -  - 51% of the Developers (Lead + General Developers) MUST cast a vote, 
> > or
> > the -    veto is invalid and fails.
> > -  - Vetos require a super (67%) majority to pass.
> > +  - More than 50% of the Developers (Lead + General Developers) MUST cast
> > a +    vote, or the veto is invalid and fails.
> > +  - Vetos require a super majority (greater than 2/3 of all votes cast) 
> > to
> > +    pass.
> >  - Veto votes are final.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: pgp1twH469DTX.pgp
Description: PGP signature