> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > >>> Back to the discussion on procedures for the PMC. Based on the > >>> emails so far, it seems to me that there are a three > proposals that > >>> meet both our objectives. > >>> > >>> Noel has suggested a majority voting process that is based on > >>> the Board process that includes the notion of quorum based on > >>> Apache bylaws Section 5.8. Quorum and Voting (i.e. 50% of > >>> PMC members). > >>> > >>> You have also suggested a qualified majority (2/3) process that > >>> also includes the notion of a quorum. In an earlier email you > >>> referenced quorum in relation to Apache bylaws Section 3.9 > >>> dealing with general members (i.e. 33% of the PMC). > >>> > >>> A third proposal from Sam Ruby is based on auto-PMC-membership, > >>> majority voting rules and presumably a fixed quorum of 3. > >> > > > > > > Looking at the three proposals, can we take pieces from all? > > > > * Auto PMC membership for committers who have been active for > > at least six months. > > > I actually prefer the active opt-in process. This ensures > that we don't > auto place people on the PMC who don't want to be on the PMC. > It also > would ensure that the PMC membership is an engaged membership. This > could be achieved by requiring re-election at periodic > intervals. This > could be achived by including a requirement for PMC elections every > year, and limiting the term of membership to one year. > > > > > > > * Charter and Bylaw voting time period is a week > > +1 > > > > > * A motion passes with 2/3 majority vote of quorum > > > Assuming active opt-in as described above, then: > > A 2/3 majority with a 33% quorum is ok providing this is considered > legally binding from the board perspective. Otherwise, 50% > majority with > a 50% quorum. > > > > > * In the event that quorum cannot be met, voting remains open > > until quorum is met. > > +1 > > > > > * Size of quorum shall be [insert your percentage here], with > > a floor of 3 people (i.e. if percentage of PMC is less than > > three, then Quorum is still 3) > > > > > > BTW, what percentage of PMC membership would you like to see > > for quorum? 50% or 33%? I am flexible on this point.
Ok. Considering all the stuff above, it looks like we should stick as close to the board pattern as possible. So it looks best for: * Strict majority ( > 50% ) with a quorum of 50% of the PMC. I honestly like something to win with more than 51% because in my opinion if the resolution can be written better it will win by more. Nevertheless, this is representative enough of the community that I will not resist it as long as point number 2 is accepted. * PMC votes are open for a minimum of one week. * If quorum cannot be met within one week, voting remains open until quorum is met. Should we have a time limit on this? For example, if an issue is on the table for a year, and quorum has not been made yet on an issue it makes little sense to keep it on the table. * PMC members are nominated by the community, and voted in by the existing PMC. Do we have minimum qualifications? I.e. should the PMC members be active committers in the community for six months? * Projects that depend on Avalon have the ability to nominate one representative each to the PMC. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
