> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > [...] > > > it looks like we should stick > > as close to the board pattern as possible. So it looks best for: > > > > * Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC. I > > honestly like something to win with more than 51% because in my > > opinion if the resolution can be written better it will win by > > more. Nevertheless, this is representative enough of the > > community that I will not resist it as long as point number 2 > > is accepted. > > > > * PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week. > > > > * If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open > > until quorum is met. Should we have a time limit on this? For > > example, if an issue is on the table for a year, and quorum > > has not been made yet on an issue it makes little sense to > > keep it on the table. > > IMHO if the quorum cannot be met in, let's say 2-3 weeks, we > should have > it dropped automatically. > Imagine that after 5 months someone issues a +1 and we reach > the quorum, > but in the meantime conditions have changed...
Agreed. If we accept the voting extension point, then it should be capped at two (2) weeks. Otherwise if quorum has not been meet, the issue is considered to have failed. It can be re-raised at a later time. (After all they might have put it up for vote right around the Christmas/New Years time period when a lot of people might be missing). > > * PMC members are nominated by the community, and voted in by > > the existing PMC. Do we have minimum qualifications? I.e. > > should the PMC members be active committers in the community > > for six months? > > IMHO PMC members are to be invited in as committers are, with > a similar > qualification system. Ok. Sounds good. > > * Projects that depend on Avalon have the ability to nominate > > one representative each to the PMC. > > The idea is nice, but don't think it would scale. If 40 > projects start > depending on Avalon? And depending on which grounds? > I repeat, I like the idea, let's see if we can make this thing into > something. The idea is to provide a mechanism where other projects can have representation. Perhaps we can limit the elegible projects to those who have a minimum number of active committers? I.e. if it has a healthy community like JAMES or Cocoon, they should be eligible to have representation. If it is a one man project or a two-three man project, then they should be involved as individuals. > > I'd also like to see the chair nominated by all the > committers, not only > the PMC. This would make the PMC truly representative of the > community > while keeping the entrance by invitation to the PMC. Ok. How about this for the chair position: * Any of the PMC members are eligible for the chair position. * The community decides which of the PMC members are nominated to the position. * The PMC makes the final vote on the Chair based on the nominated individuals. * The chair position will be up for revote every 3 months. NOTE: I don't want to impose any limitation on the number of consecutive terms a chair can serve. If someone is doing a good job and acting responsibly in the position, then why mess with a good thing? I.e. if Nicola proves himself to be nonpartial and really a benefit to the community in this position I would vote for him again. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
