Thorsten Scherler escribió:
El vie, 21-04-2006 a las 16:31 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
...
The term "Active PMC members" seems to cause
confusion about who has a binding vote. It was
intended to just clarify the Unanimous and
2/3 Majority situations, so that we didn't need
to chase people and force them to vote. The word
"Active" would now be removed.
So for the 2/3 Majority situation, the chair can
decide on a case-by-case basis if a quorum has
been reached.
Why not simply talk about 2/3 of the votes (those who choose to vote)
within a reasonable time frame?
Hey, good idea. I reckon that would remove the
ambiguity about who has binding votes.
Does that mean all votes are binding (committer as well)?
Wasn't that what the term active was meant
to say in the first place: Active in terms of coming forward to cast a
vote?
I like your interpretation.
I see activeness different then coming forward and voting.
The problem for the project management (in the classical commercial
sense) is that
a) we do not know who can spend how much time for feature xyz. It would
be nice that each PMC member state in the beginning of the month how
many time she more or less can spend on the project or certain tasks.
b) we do not know who is willing to be active in certain parts. Would be
nice that PMC member could state which areas (or tasks) of forrest they
are willing to cover.
c) we do not have a PM (in the commercial sense of the word) who is
managing tasks and coordinate the effort. Best seen in FF where the
question "What can I do?" is one of the most frequent ones.
It would be nice to create different teams (or task forces) and have the
PM to coordinate the effort that our work can become more efficient.
Trying to implement enterprise policies in an OS project......hmm.....
Where I met this few months ago? Lenya?
.... bingo! --> [1]
:-D
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lenya-dev&m=113863947316957
