Berin, I doubt that a three-week voting process as you outline would neccessarily lead to a better result.
The PMC charter and bylaws, rotating chair, etc. need not be set in stone before we can start. In fact, if we had to specify every detail in writing before the charter, we would probably never get anything going. We don't write software by first doing one big design up front, then coding - instead we start of with a best-guess and see how it survives contact with reality. The we modify and adapt it to the *real* needs. There is no reason to consider the charter and bylaws as something rigid and forever unchanging and that they should be designed that way. The moment we think everything must be set in stone, you'll see all the factions we have do the sensible thing - that is, try to get *their* pet things into that stone writing. End result? Nothing. The PMC proposal as given is not detailed. Good. That means that any social problems we have will have to be fought the way they are supposed to be fought, and not in CVS or via PMC charter texts. Additionally, I find strange that we're voting on a voting. When will anybody call a vote for how this re-voting will be counted (majority, concensus, etc.) and how/when do we do that vote? I vote against this re-vote procedure. It's the first iteration of an endless loop. /LS > From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
