Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] second set of amendments to voting policy

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew Stitt <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] second set of amendments to voting policy
  • Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:14:08 -0700

I mostly agree with these ammendments, but want to make sure I understand
them, commentary inline below.

On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 01:41:35PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>
>
>
> Things not in this diff that we may want to add (these have had some
> discussion already, but not as much consensus):
> - A provision for changing votes on issue votes before the vote ends.

This appears to be in the diffs below
+- Votes MAY be changed before the scheduled end of the vote by
notification to
+ the designated email address.
Also, that wording is not clear on voting for leads, issues, or both.

> - More explicit language that issue votes can be used to decide things for
> component leads who are absent.
What are the possible downsides of enacting this?

> - More explicit language around the authority of the project lead over
> individual components.
such as?

<snip>
>

> +- The Project Policy supercedes all other published or practiced Source
> Mage
> + policies.

Just seeing if I understand this. The rationale here is to prevent for
example, a component lead from creating a policy that says that he can
do whatever they want regardless of issue votes?


> + the interpretation motion. If more than 50% of the Lead Developers move
> that
> + a question of interpretation cannot be resolved with an Issue Vote, the
> + interpretation WILL be determined solely by the Project Lead without
> + possibility of veto.

Can you explain the rationale behind this? why is it necessary?

> +- The Mailing List used for voting is sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org.
> +- A motion, vote, etc. reaches the Mailing List when it is accepted for
> + delivery by the mail exchanger for lists.ibiblio.org.

I think we need a provision for what happens if lists.ibiblio.org fails.
As I read this, it would become impossible to vote on changes the policy
-- which would be required if a new mailing list server was necessary.

<snip>
>
> +- Issue Vote vetos are immune from the effects of the motion they apply to.
> - Veto votes are final.

Can you explain what this means and the rationale behind it? Maybe an
example would help.

-Andrew


--
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt | acedit at armory.com | astitt at sourcemage.org |
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpJweKSH4w59.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page