True, there are other ways. We could designate autocratic control of the project, like Python does, which is what we have until Alex tells us how he wants it run. We could limit the democratic process to a selected body (selected how I don't know). It sounded to me like the cleanest solution if Alex isn't going to be very involved. Just trying to get discussion going about something other that source control... :-)
Richard. On Aug 16, 5:13 pm, "Martin O'Leary" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/8/16 Richard Thomas <[email protected]>: > > > A decision making process would be nice. We could easily hold such > > votes in a invitation only group managed by all the committers. > > Preceding vote discussions with a "Vote:" prefix and maintaining a > > policy of not posting arguments or points of view in excess of "in > > favor" or "not in favor" in such discussions would make the process > > quite clean. That's far from complete. There are additional things > > needed, like time limits and a consensus on who posts that the vote > > finished and whatnot. But the process would be accessible and > > transparent and those sound like the most important details. > > I'm slightly concerned that you're making a jump here from > "decision-making process" to "votes". Democracy is one option for how > the project should be run, but I'm not convinced it's the best one. > > Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
