Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

On May 05, George sherwood [pilot AT beernabeer.com] wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:06:59 -0500
> "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Is there some reason this has to be done so quickly?  We only found out
> the results of the Organization Policy yesterday and now this.  We
> haven't figured out what is a lead developer IAW with the new policy, so
> now only the leads under the old policy have counted votes.  Not sure
> this is a great way to start the new organization. I don't see the
> reason for rushing this vote.

Several issues were raised during the other vote that people wanted
clarfication on... I understand people wanting them clarified quickly.  I
also get your point though; I was making a list and planning to propose an
amendment to clarify them in a week or two when people were used to things.

However, given that it's been motioned and seconded (twice, really), we're
obligated to call a vote on it.  Technically we could wait up to a week
from the motion, but IMO we (the people who can call votes) should do our
part quickly if others are asking for something to be decided.

For what it's worth this is a very minor change to the wording and hasn't
been argued about by anyone that I know of, but it appears to be important
to a lot of people (several others have asked about it in IRC both during
and since the vote, apart from the ones making these motions today).

That having been said, if you guys want to see more than the "former" TLs
in as voting Leads I encourage you to start nominating them, because we do
have several issues that will probably get called for vote fairly soon.
One of the most important is the question of where and how to file papers
as a non-profit.  I'd suggest putting nominations out there and then maybe
in a week we can call one concurrent vote combining everyone who has been
nominated/seconded/accepted so we don't have to have a lot of votes going
one after the other.

Attachment: pgpMrdje8VUOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature