On 26 May 2016 at 09:22, Matthew Dixon Cowles <m...@mondoinfo.com> wrote:
> [Marc-Andre]
>> Thank you for explaining your concern in more detail. This makes it
>> easier to understand why you think we should have put this up for a
>> members vote.
>
>> the board remains ultimately responsible for any decisions in this
>> direction.
>
> I disagree. I think that the membership is ultimately responsible.

That was certainly the position of the original bylaws, but as the
voting membership base broadened, each sponsor member vote was
eliciting more "Why am I even being asked about this?" responses. By
instead switching sponsor approvals to a Working Group model without
any direct impact on the Foundation's future governance, it meant
that:

- members that wanted to be part of the sponsor review process could
sign up for the WG
- members that were happy to delegate the task to someone else would
no longer be bothered

This means both views are now accommodated - members that feel the
Board is ultimately responsible for sponsorship review can leave it up
to them (or the delegated Working Group), while folks that feel more
personal responsibility for the topic are precisely the kinds of folks
we'd like to see volunteering to join the new working group.

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncogh...@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
PSF-Community mailing list
PSF-Community@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community

Reply via email to