On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Danny Angus wrote:
Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 16/03/2006 08:14:08:
My proposal is that we create a file in SVN in which PMC members can list
themselves as being active. After 1 month, failure to appear in that list
will result in removal from the PMC. If it goes well we could consider
doing it periodically, or just when it feels like the numbers are getting
out of sync again.
My thought is this...
1/ we have a process for decision making - email votes.
1a/ we don't have a process for managing your file, and anyway it would
still require mail to be involved.
Poorly explained by me. The file would be deleted once it had served its
purpose. An alternative is a mail thread to which everyone must answer to
remain on the PMC - however a file in SVN is a lot simpler to keep track
of.
2/ we should use what works
3/ we know we're lazy so lets factor that in.
Yep. All process should be the minimum necessary to get the job done and
allow us all to get back to the real task of development.
What I think might be a better solution would be that we periodically vote
to de-select named pmc members.
The votes are tallied per lazy-consensus.
Doesn't fit with the lazyness bit though. Up to 50% of the PMC are not
active committers to Jakarta. That's a lot of voting, even with lazy
consensus.
Scenarios are...
Danny proposes to de-select Robert (just an example mate, I'd never do
that:-).
a)No votes cast. Robert goes.
b)Some people vote +1 but Robert votes -1. He gets to stay.
Nope, he gets to leave. A -1 from the person involved would quite simply
be a resignation, which can happen at any time.
c)Robert doesn't vote but someone else knows why he's temporarily unable to
contribute so votes -1, He stays.
Pros are:
This is safe from the POV that it doesn't strip people of PMC membership
unless no-one cares enough to do anything.
It's not as if it's hard to get back on if anyone cares to rejoin.
It achieves its goal with minimum effort on the part of the active PMC
members.
The mail thread recording the decision is archived in the same place and
the same manner as all the other decisions we take.
That's a good one. We can record the results of the svn file in an email
too.
The process which resulted in their election to the PMC is (more or less)
followed in reverse.
Symmetry is nice - but whether someone stays on the PMC or not should
really be up to just themselves - +1 means stay, -1 means go, no reply
means go after a suitable period of time.
Cons are:
It's a lot of mail. Lot of work to collate that.
It is open to abuse, there is no restriction on the people who can be
proposed or the frequency that votes can be called. This would be mitigated
by the fact that many of us are not as daft as we look.
It's legitimacy could be challenged unless it was documented somewhere.
Nah, we're into a realm where legitimacy is defined by whatever we decide
to do. Technically our charter says we need a 75% of the PMC vote to
remove someone - we're not going to get that and it's not a rule that
scopes.
We probably should just drop that from the charter - it's unnecessary
bureaucracy. Or change it to something simpler. One question is whether
we'd want to do that first - before removing the inactive PMC members from
the PMC.
Then again if someone was especially belligerent they could challenge
anything I suppose, and I guess that the issue could be escalated to the
board.
Well, first it'd escalate to the chair. A chair should be able to sort
such things out without it becoming a board issue.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
