Public SourceMage Discussion List

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

Eric Sandall (eric AT sandall.us) wrote [10.04.28 13:04]:
> Per http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Voting_Policy, the following
> developers are up for being seconded for removal:
>   Colin Childs
>   Dale E. Edmons
>   Daniel Goller
>   Ivan Lezhnjov Jr.
>   John Harding
>   Lalo Martins
>   Lubomir Blaha
>   Paul Mahon
>   Pieter Lenaerts
> 
> Note the following:
> * Automatic Removal Votes (triggered by inactivity as specified in the
> Developer Organization document) automatically pass unless a simple
> majority (greater than 50% of all binding votes cast) vote against the
> removal. 
> * An Automatic Removal Vote vote must be proposed and seconded
> as per the Issue Voting Process, but no voting will take place unless a
> vote to keep the developer is entered, then voting will proceed as
> normal. 
> * All General and Lead Developers (other than the Developer being
> voted upon) are counted as having voted unless a normal vote is
> required as described above.
> 
> -sandalle

I just realized that this is in conflict (at least according to my
interpretation, which may be incorrect) with what is stated in the
Developer Organization[1]:

• are automatically nominated and seconded for a removal vote after one
year of inactivity (defined as no committed changes to any part of the
project's source code or documentation repositories (including web
sites)).

[1]: http://sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developer_Organization

So we have one document (the voting policy) which states that automatic
removal requires us to nominate and second as normal, while another
document (the developer organization) states that the nominating and
seconding are automatic? Also, according to the voting policy, the
removal vote automatically passes unless it is voted down by a simple
majority (rather than passing if voted up). If the nominating and
seconding were automatic (as claimed by the developer organization
page), then I think we wouldn't want the vote to automatically pass
unless voted down.

So which of these documents is "more correct", and which needs to be
altered/updated to be brought in sync with the other? I'm leaning for
the voting policy to be more accurate (in general), but what do you all
think? Am I just misinterpreting what's there somehow?

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgp0T0tSlJdt3.pgp
Description: PGP signature