On 23/1/09 11:38 AM, James Lawson wrote:
Hi all,
We're bouncing around some ideas about how we might structure the
decision making process within the CellML community. Ideally, we want
to make it as transparent as possible and have some kind of executive
group that reports directly to the community via a fair, democratic
process.
I've drafted a document that outlines some of the ideas we've talked
about in the Auckland CellML meetings. There are a few holes in it
that we need to patch up - namely, how the actual voting system might
work.
Please let me know what you think.
Kind regards,
James
So far as a voting system goes, what about the one used by the Apache
Software Foundation? See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
*Decision Making*
Projects are normally auto governing and driven by the people who
volunteer for the job. This is sometimes referred to as "do-ocracy"
-- power of those who do. This functions well for most cases.
When coordination is required, decisions are taken with a lazy
consensus approach: a few positive votes with no negative vote is
enough to get going.
Voting is done with numbers:
* +1 -- a positive vote
* 0 -- abstain, have no opinion
* -1 -- a negative vote
The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative
proposal or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote.
The community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative
proposal that resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases,
the concerns leading to the negative vote can be addressed.
This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a
very important indication of a healthy community.
Regards,
Dave
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
