On 26 May 2016 at 09:22, Matthew Dixon Cowles <m...@mondoinfo.com> wrote: > [Marc-Andre] >> Thank you for explaining your concern in more detail. This makes it >> easier to understand why you think we should have put this up for a >> members vote. > >> the board remains ultimately responsible for any decisions in this >> direction. > > I disagree. I think that the membership is ultimately responsible.
That was certainly the position of the original bylaws, but as the voting membership base broadened, each sponsor member vote was eliciting more "Why am I even being asked about this?" responses. By instead switching sponsor approvals to a Working Group model without any direct impact on the Foundation's future governance, it meant that: - members that wanted to be part of the sponsor review process could sign up for the WG - members that were happy to delegate the task to someone else would no longer be bothered This means both views are now accommodated - members that feel the Board is ultimately responsible for sponsorship review can leave it up to them (or the delegated Working Group), while folks that feel more personal responsibility for the topic are precisely the kinds of folks we'd like to see volunteering to join the new working group. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
