Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Loritsch wrote:
Stephen, what is the biggest problem with the Avalon community?
Just that, the community. The thing is that we the community have
to come up with the bylaws that run our community. If the community is
not happy with the bylaws that the PMC sets up by blind majority, they
will go elsewhere.
I think it is more important at this juncture to get the community
on board and forget about your pet agenda.
Berin:
Lets take a step back for a moment and look at what we are both
attempting to achieve.
<snip/>
Back to the discussion on procedures for the PMC. Based on the emails
so far, it seems to me that there are a three proposals that meet both
our objectives.
Noel has suggested a majority voting process that is based on
the Board process that includes the notion of quorum based on
Apache bylaws Section 5.8. Quorum and Voting (i.e. 50% of
PMC members).
You have also suggested a qualified majority (2/3) process that
also includes the notion of a quorum. In an earlier email you
referenced quorum in relation to Apache bylaws Section 3.9
dealing with general members (i.e. 33% of the PMC).
A third proposal from Sam Ruby is based on auto-PMC-membership,
majority voting rules and presumably a fixed quorum of 3.
The difference between the first two is subtle - the benefit of
increasing the quorum is that it ensures "representation" - the downside
is related to availability of members. The impact of "majority" as
opposed to "qualified majority" favors consensus. Of the two, I think I
prefer your proposal. The third proposal is interesting because it
ensures representation and in general makes life simpler (it is also
possibly my favorite out of the three). However - to properly included
the third proposal would need to set the timeframe for voting to be
something like a week instead of 72 hours.
So you are saying that you would like a 2/3 majority?
I highly favor a week voting frame. There are times where I cannot
get to this list for 4 whole days, and it would give me a chance to
review all the information and make an informed choice. I think that
a week is probably the best length of time--it is not so long as to
unduly drag out a process while not being so short that it does not
provide a reasonable enough time to respond properly.
BTW, I think we have a basis we can work with.
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
