> Based on the emails so far, it seems to me that there are
> a three proposals that meet both our objectives.
I'd like to clarify. Are you trying to lower the standard for a quorum from
50% of PMC members to a minimum of 3 PMC members voting over some period of
time? [By the way, I also had incorporated the notion of time since there
wouldn't be an actual meeting unlike for an ASF Board Meeting.]
As you stated: "the benefit of increasing the quorum is that it ensures
representation - the downside is related to availability of members."
There *might* be an obstacle with respect to the definition of a quorum.
You are proposing that regardless of the size of the PMC that a quorum made
of less than 50% be able to legally bind the organization. But if the ASF
allows that, I really couldn't care less what the Community agrees upon as a
quorum, so long as everyone is comfortable.
>From your conclusion that the third proposal is (possibly) your favorite, I
derive that you want all activce Committers to be represented on the PMC,
majority vote (rather than 2/3), and a lower standard for a quorum. Is that
correct?
Again, just trying to pull together the mechanism from your prose.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
