On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 07:06:10AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> Thanks for the updated governance MST. Just one comment/question from
> me (this is not intended to be critical because I made the previous
> alternate proposal, it's a genuine concern that I would like to see
> answered that led
On 2016-11-08 1:10 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:18:14PM +0100, Hartmaier Alexander wrote:
Are 72 hours enough to reach a significant amount of list members?
For releasing a CPAN version that's fine for me as git master should
always be in a releaseable state but for
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 12:18:14PM +0100, Hartmaier Alexander wrote:
> Are 72 hours enough to reach a significant amount of list members?
> For releasing a CPAN version that's fine for me as git master should
> always be in a releaseable state but for feature branch merges I'd like
> to have this
Are 72 hours enough to reach a significant amount of list members?
For releasing a CPAN version that's fine for me as git master should
always be in a releaseable state but for feature branch merges I'd like
to have this extended to say a week.
What do the others think?
Thanks for the updated governance MST. Just one comment/question from
me (this is not intended to be critical because I made the previous
alternate proposal, it's a genuine concern that I would like to see
answered that led me to make the previous alternative proposal):
> Voting Members are:
>
>
Having read Matt's new proposal and its correction, it comes across as
reasonable and workable to me. I have no thoughts at this time as to how it
could be improved. This message is just feedback, and does not make any
relative value judgements between Matt's proposal and Peter's upcoming
I'm an idiot.
> Voting closes after 72h from when the proposal was first posted.
This line should be replaced with:
Voting closes after 72h from when the VOTE: email is sent.
My apologies.
--
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue
The updated bootstrap governance document appears below - basically I've
attempted to tweak it so that, while business as usual can occur without
needing the list to expend time getting involved, the community now gets
a clear veto - and there's a forcible recall method (forced vote) to defend
