On Feb 13, 2008 6:04 AM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > hey ... how's this for a simpler voting and project proposal process > for Advocacy? Just for discussion. Once we decide, I'll update the pages > .... > > (1) Core Contributor -- Nominated by a Core Contributor, three +1 votes, > no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can vote. > > (2) Contributor -- Self nominated or nominated by a Contributor or Core > Contributor, no -1 votes, no minimum or maximum +1 votes, duration > within five days, only CCs can vote. > > (3) Project and/or User Group -- Proposal based on the new format below, > one +1 vote, no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can vote. > > Advocacy Project/UG Proposal Format > > * Name of project or user group. > * A minimum of three initial participants listed with their > OpenSolaris user IDs. > * A one-paragraph description of the project or user group, which > should include the location and activities planned for user groups > and problems to solve for projects.
*disclaimer: just reading from the constitution; not my personal view* It looks like your proposed procedures fit within the guidelines, but I just wanted to point out that the constitution has some pre-defined limitations on voting. *end disclaimer* According to Article VIII, Section 8.4 of the constitution, the following procedure is to be used for Core Contributor additions: Consensus At least three (3) binding +1 votes and no -1 votes (i.e., unanimous with a minimal quorum of three votes). Putbacks (when subjected to vote). Initiate new project. Terminate project. Addition of Core Contributor. Removal of Core Contributor (subject must abstain). From: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/#ARTICLE_VIII.__Community_Group_Voting_Procedures Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
