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

Re: Proposal for a EPEL Steering Committee

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:05:59PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:53:07PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >
> >> Approving something require at least four Steering Committee members
> >> to vote and the majority of the votes wins.
> > Isn't that the same? The majority of 7 people is always 4+. Or are you
> > saying that we need the majority to attend to a vote and of that
> > majority again the majority?
> The latter.
> > The latter doesn't sound that good, as you would end up with passing
> > votes that are less than the majority. I would strictly stick to
> > having a majority quorum of positive votes compared to the full number
> > of members, irrespective of how many are attending the voting.
> I feared/fear that we run into situations where members simply are not
> present in votings or not really responsive even on the list; to avoid
> that I copied how FESCo works/worked afaics. But well, you have a point,
> too. I'll remove that cornercase for now, but will bring that quickly
> bring up as adjustments if my fears should become true. Does that sound
> sane?

A member can still vote via mail/wiki, and if he/she is not even
available for doing that within a reasonable amount of time, then that
member is effectivly out of the game and needs to be either
temporarily taken from the committee or removed altogether.

Effectively that's what your adjustments do also, but in a more
automatic way. I'd say better handle that case (if it comes up) by
disabling/removing the MIA member temporarily or permanantly upon the
member's request or at the rest of the committee's discretion.

We had that situation once in the FPC, and did just that at the end.

> >>  * when FESCo member reads what the EPEL Steering Committee decided and
> >> disagrees with that
> > Since the decisions of this committee are reported and ratified by
> > fesco, is this needed? This sounds like we do some work and get it
> > approved by fesco. And then two weeks later a fesco member returns
> > from vacation and quotes this sentence to undo everything.
> It was more meant as clarification, but seems it is more confusing that
> helping now that I look at it again. I'll take a look to make this more
> clear later and will set a definite timeframe for a FESCo veto, to make
> it more clear.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpes1mHbSiWs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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