Regarding who gets to vote - there appears to be a disagreement between Stephen and Berin.
Berin has a two-step vote for the Normal Majority Vote: First, every committer votes, and if the vote passes the PMC votes on it. Stephen limits this to PMC-only. There is also an issue where discussion prior to vote should be held: Stephen: avalon-dev OR avalon-pmc Berin: avalon-dev Given that the Chair has dictator rights, how about picking the choices that gives the most flexibility and trust the Chair to step in and force it if needed? So: In the first case, we keep the two-step voting process. The Chair can overrule the committer vote if needed. This means that we give committers (but not PMC members) representation, but not to the point where they can block the PMC doing what is really a PMC vote. The committers get representation, but we clearly state that the PMC (and the Chair) can overrule in extreme cases (that should never happen). In the second case, we allow discussion to take place on avalon-pmc, and the Chair can force the discussion to be held on avalon-dev if needed. I think this will make the "general case" not requiring Chair intervention, and special cases handled by the Chair. Allowing the discussion to take place on the pmc list is only a problem if something that should be open is kept with in the pmc list. That said, I recognize that there are things that shouldn't be discussed in public, and we should not commit ourselves to a procedure that ignores that and requires everything to be public. (Consider the board discussion leading to Peter D.'s suspension, I don't think it would have been to anyone's advantage if the reasons for the suspension (private emails etc.) had been laid out in public.) /LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
