Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Project Lead Vote for the 2011 term

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Project Lead Vote for the 2011 term
  • Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:27:16 +0900

Ladislav Hagara (ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz) wrote [11.02.15 10:08]:
> > On 02/14/2011 10:54 AM, Mark Bainter wrote:
> >> George Sherwood [pilot AT beernabeer.com] wrote:
> >>>> I have no issue with letting the 2nd nomination proceed.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And if we do decide to let the 2nd nomination proceed, I would like to
> >>> nominate a 3rd:
> >>
> >> I dunno, now it just seems like we're flaunting the rules. The Kowis
> >> nomination came because of a discussion in channel where Kowis said he
> >> had thought about throwing his name in [in the context of our lamenting
> >> the lack of participation in the PL vote nominations], and we just did
> >> it for him. At the time I was thinking the nominations weren't
> >> officially closed until the email was sent closing them - but that
> >> wasn't really the way ruskie was running it, so we were outside by 13
> >> hours or so.
> >>
> >> This now seems like it's almost setting a precedent that says it doesn't
> >> matter what the time frames are - which could make the annual votes an
> >> even bigger mess than they already are sometimes.
> >>
> >> The rules were put in place for a reason - to give us guidelines and
> >> keep order, and prevent dragging these necessary but distracting
> >> administrative events out. All things being equal, these two will have
> >> another chance either right away (if Emrys doesn't get the votes) or at
> >> the end of that term if he does. On consideration I think I'd rather
> >> that we just stick with the rules.
> >>
> >
> > I don't mind it in this case, as long as it's an exception to the rules.
> > The rules are just guidelines, if we really want to have a three-way PL
> > vote, I'm 100% okay with that, especially given the lack of activity
> > with SMGL.
> >
> > In this particular case, I don't think it's such a bad thing to "flaunt
> > the rules" a bit. We have been somewhat lax in the procedural
> > department, so I don't think it's so horrible this time.
> >
> > Also, I don't think it will happen very often, so I think this one time
> > will be an exception. Usually we do have an email come out that reminds
> > us that nominations are closed and that one week for acceptance speeches
> > are happening and whatnot. So I can understand the desire to let more
> > people in and such.
> >
> >
> > However, the time for a decision is now. Since our current (relatively
> > unofficial) PL is ruskie, we need a decision and we need to move forward.
>
>
>
> Imho, last official announce was at [1]: David Kowis (a.k.a. dkowis,
> among others) has agreed to continue in the capacity of Assistant
> Project Lead. Without PL we have APL.
>
> According to [2] we have 43 active developers. Seems most of them don't
> care the vote.
>
>
> [1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-discuss/2010-March/020011.html
> [2] http://www.sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developers

Actually, if we're going to be technical about things, David isn't an
APL. An APL is appointed by an acting PL, and when that PL goes out of
office, any appointments go with the PL, unless the new PL appoints the
same people. However, the new appointments have to actually be made. So
either ruskie is the acting PL and he can appoint who he chooses, if
anyone, or we have neither PL nor APL(s).

<quote url="http://sourcemage.org/SourceMage/Developer_Organization";>
Assistants:
...
• revert to their regular, non-assistant status if the Lead they are
assisting steps down or is otherwise removed as Lead.
</quote>

Honestly, when I made the nomination for David, I thought it was much
closer to the closing window for the nominations (I had just gotten home
from a long day at work and wasn't really calculating/realizing the UTC
time). If I had realized it was already over 12 hours late, I wouldn't
have made the nomination in the first place. If people don't have a
problem with it passing, that's fine. If we want to stick with the
rules, that's fine by me too. Like Jeremy, I've been keeping quiet on
this because I was one of the "involved".

However, if there's a "consensus-like need" then it's probably better to
call for an actual issue vote rather than just ask. At least that's the
only way to know if people "care about the vote", because in that case
it'd be a vote, as opposed to just a general consensus (which never
garners much attention, as I know from all the times I've asked for
consensus about ISO-related issues). Likely, an issue vote won't get
much more attention, but at least that would be official.

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

Attachment: pgp0GC0PHUw8A.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page