[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for voting SIG



Axel Thimm schrieb:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:00:55AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Axel Thimm schrieb:
>>> So we should get things clarified/formalized to be able to *work* on
>>> issues instead of discussing them. Let fesco appoint a group and setup
>>> the framwork of our mandate.
>> The EPEL SIG is afaics appointed by FESCo to work on EPEL.
> Which means that we can finally initiate a vote on fedora-usrmgmt
> acceptance or banning?

I'd say no (but that's just my opinion) -- until now the SIG worked
mostly like this afaics: SIG members simply do stuff and keep the other
members up2date with what they do and as long as nobody yells everything
is fine.

That's a whole lot easier for a getting stuff done in this startup
phase. But is we start to have controversial topics with real
battle-voting's then I'd say we have to get a lot of process in place
first. E.g.

- where to vote (IRC, mailing lists)
- how many voters have to vote +1 to accept something
- who coordinates the votes (chaos would arise if everybody calls out
for voting's )
- control who becomes a SIG member (having voting with more then 20
people becomes problematic)
- announce voting's beforehand and give members enough time to vote
- some other stuff I'm forgetting now

That's a lot of process to put in place and to document. I agree that we
need that sooner or later, but I must say I had hoped we could finish
this startup phase without all that overhead.

CU
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]