In general, I like this approach. I do have concerns with only one +1 being required though. Is that standard?
"- Voting is by lazy consensus where at least one +1 vote is sufficient to move forward and a single -1 vote is sufficient to block a proposal. (It's worth noting that these voting rules would apply to commits/pull requests as well.)" Cheers, Scott On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Marvin S. Addison <marvin.addi...@gmail.com > wrote: > We met this afternoon with Ian Dolphin, executive director of the Apereo > Foundation of which the CAS project is a member, to discuss CAS project > governance. It's a pressing matter since he reminded us that the foundation > requires every member project to have a working governance body. The CAS > Steering Committee has been defunct for almost a year, so it's accurate to > say the project presently has no functioning governance body. > > We agreed that an Apache-style Project Management Committee (PMC) is the > simplest and best approach to CAS governance. Apache PMCs are loosely > defined by the following characteristics, which are the basis of my > proposal for adoption: > > - The foundation board appoints a committee chair, presumably a member of > the board. > - The chair reports to the foundation board and has executive authority > over the committee. In practice executive authority is only exercised in > situations where the committee cannot reach consensus or is otherwise not > functioning properly. > - Committers are PMC members. > - Members (committers) vote to accept new members based on merit. > - Voting is by lazy consensus where at least one +1 vote is sufficient to > move forward and a single -1 vote is sufficient to block a proposal. (It's > worth noting that these voting rules would apply to commits/pull requests > as well.) > - Communication happens primarily by public mailing lists. Exceptions are > issues that require discretion or confidentiality; private lists are the > appropriate channel in those situations. > - Members agree to abide by and enforce foundation legal policy and > foundation branding/marketing policies. > > A PMC as described above is a good fit for the CAS project. Strong > oversight from the Apereo Foundation, whom we implicitly trust as friends, > affords resources to resolve conflicts and provide project continuity. The > membership, voting, and communication processes closely resemble how we > work today, thus the PMC model adds some value while keeping consistent > with current practice. PMCs are inherently loosely defined and flexible; > other than meeting the requirements above they are free to develop their > own policies to address matters as needed. In summary the PMC structure > affords the best balance of meeting Apereo Foundation requirements and a > governance model that doesn't get in the way of day-to-day project business. > > Please consider this proposal and provide feedback. I'm happy to field > questions and take suggestions. > > Best, > M > > -- > You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: > scott.battag...@gmail.com > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see > http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/**display/JSG/cas-dev<http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev> > -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
