On 08/08/2013 09:30 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > 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".) >
I think that's fine for a first stab - but I think we should keep our eyes on how it goes and see if we can trim it down. I do think what Mark said is a potential win - as long as we're not losing things. Some things are quite straight-forward and non-controversial and the questions people ask could easily be asked on the mailing list or in the code review. OTOH, some things really do need real-time discussion. I'm guessing if we do something similar to our current system except only changing the voting and the fact that a record is produced for a while, that will be a great step forward. If we feel that mandatory IRC discussions of every topic are overkill after doing that for a while, then neat. If not, neat. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
