Monty Taylor wrote: > What if instead we had a repo with a bunch of ReStructureText in it - > perhaps a copy of the TC charter and then a dir for additional things > the TC has decided. That repo would be autopublished to a non-wiki > website ... and the core team for the repo was the TC. EXCEPT, we didnt' > do a 2 core +2 thing ... we'd have some slightly different rules. Such > as - certain number of days it has to be open, certain number of +1 > votes, etc. And then only the TC chair has the actual APRV vote, which > is used to codify the vote tallies.
I think that's a great idea, tracking revisions of proposed motions and recording of the results/votes is not so great at this point. I would still prefer to use the ML and the meeting to *discuss* the motion, but tracking wording changes and approvals should be made easier. A few questions: * Chair can use APRV once the vote is over to indicate YES wins... how to indicate that the vote is over and NO won ? Abandon the review ? * How do we handle proxies ? Giving temporary +2 to a non-TC member sounds like a bit of pain -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
