Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I think its reasonable as well. It is clear that the 72 duration, although 100% ligitamate, was considered by many as too short. A week duration effectively takes this to 168 hours.Please note that my [1 week] was a shorthand for what I saw as the1) Minimum period within which to count votes [1 week]
suggestion from Berin, not my own. Although I think that a week is a
reasonable value.
This is functionally equivalent to the notion of periodic elections - so yep it works for me because it ensures engagement.
Berin mentioned extension of the period if quorum has not been met.Either one works for me.
If such a notion is introduced we must also have a cut-off point
where a motion fails because quorum was not met (e.g. three weeks).
I would also be happy with no extension semantics.
I think that it makes sense that if the idea of elections is dropped in2) The definition of a quorum (3+, 33%, 50%) [ ? ]This one (for me) is strong influenced by two factors
favor of allowing any active and interested Committer to be a PMC member,
you might incorporate your notion of a Committer having to ask to be on the
PMC, and having to renew the request per period (6 months to a year).
Given that, you should have an engaged PMC, and should be able to stick withI agree - given a 50% quorum I would prefer to see simple majority. However, there should the identification of cases requiring 2/3 majority - for example, the modification of the charter or the established policies and procedures.
the 50% quorum. If someone else wants a lower standard, let them propose
it.
3) Percentage required to carry the vote [ 66% ]
Again, the 66% was my shorthand for Berin's apparent suggestion. I'd go with a simple majority (and a 50% quorum).
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
