Salvete!
>> I think this is a valid point. The meeting agendas are posted well in >> advance, so it should be possible to arrange to be present for a vote. > Well, with time shifting, don't expect ppl from the "it's 2AM" > timezone > to be here, so I strongly think we should adress this issue. > How? I don't think anyone expects people from the crummy timezone to be present. The best we can do is slate a time that works for a good chunk of the geographic world, as we do now. It's always going to be a reality of life for real time meetings when we have a global project that part of the project is disenfranchised part of the time. If we come together as we have and say that "Okay, this is a large issue, let's invoke a special procedure" that's fine. It's basically a motion to suspend the rules as far as I'm concerned. Those are in order some of the time in special cases. Making a special case a day to day reality is why I'm starting to dig in. I don't want to overpromise myself here. >> We've already demonstrated that for larger issues (like the Koha >> non-profit question) we can use alternate methods to vote. I say we >> should keep the smaller stuff (especially developer-centric stuff) to >> the IRC meetings. > So maybe we should say: > * discussion votes are made on the mailing list / on the wiki, and not > on IRC if you think we should not have 2 places to vote ? Note that i've > nothing against more than one method to vote. In France, if you're not > present the day of the vote, you can do a "vote par procuration" > (proxy > vote says gg translate). It would be the same kind of voting. > All of this is a matter of frequency. Voting in France is not monthly on multiple small issues. Furthermore, there's infrastructure at work that I don't have at my disposal. I am not even an arrondisement, Paul. If we really want this, then we'd need a committee of volunteers that would show to count proxies _every_ month. That's a lot of man hours that I'd frankly prefer to dedicate elsewhere. If we decided on this for roles *maybe*. I'd be inclined to say certainly if we went to a 9 or 12 month release cycle. Conference to me works well: it's a once a year occurrence. We're lucky to have Nicole helping there and tabulating things. Hashing things out on the mailing list first certainly works. I still like formalising it at the meeting so that there's a logical end to discussion. I don't think anyone wants to miss a discussion, which is why the one week window before the meeting for things labeled discussion works. I think it's going to be tricky to ensure that we don't fall back to things discussed over the list and MUNG in IRC. We'll see though. > To answer Brooke concern: > I also think the "you must register on the wiki" is not a big deal. If > you want to be involved in Koha, registering on the wiki & bugzilla will > be hard to avoid... > It's not a big deal with plenty of lead time. If the wiki is down, then it becomes a big deal. Bugzilla is not particularly hard to avoid for non devs. We need a nice participation flow from listserv, IRC, wiki to harder things like sandboxing, bugzilla, and proper developing. Cheers, Brooke _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
