Mark McLoughlin wrote: > I think what Monty might be getting at is that TC decisions would no > longer happen by default with people voting at a particular TC meeting. > Rather a discussion would happen on the mailing list with people casting > their votes in gerrit as the discussion evolves and, at some point, a > proposal has enough +2 votes (and no -2 votes) such that it's > automatically considered passed.
That still leaves me a bit worried: I don't really want "enough +2" to result in passing fast motions, without giving the -2 party a chance to convince the others of the flaws in the proposal. I guess we can fix that by imposing a few rules on when a vote can be considered fully cast (require that the motion is discussed in at least one meeting, consider it abandoned/rejected if it doesn't reach enough +2 after n meetings). > Maybe this could be a good default way for us to decide on things, but > if we reach an impasse in gerrit or if a decision has been reached in > gerrit by some required date, then we have a final TC IRC meeting and > standard meetbot vote to settle it. We could still use the review system to settle it during the final meeting: just consider non-cast votes as "abstain" and use our quorum rules. Something like: - Propose motion (>4 days -- commenting/voting is open but can't be closed yet) - TC meeting about motion (7 days -- during that period if the vote gathers enough +2 (or -2) the vote will be passed or rejected) - Final TC meeting about motion: votes not cast by the end of the meeting will be considered "abstain" and quorum rules apply (For complex discussions we could have multiple meetings before calling for a "final TC meeting".) -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
