+1 On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Thejas M Nair <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 > > -Thejas > > > > On 10/5/10 1:15 PM, "Alan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comments inlined. However, I feel like we're getting stuck in a > rathole on this one issue of consensus and 2/3's votes. So I would > like to ask two questions now: > > 1) Are there any other issues besides voting we feel should be > discussed before we move to a vote? > 2) For those who have expressed concern about the voting, are these > concerns enough to make you not vote for these bylaws, or can you live > with it as is? I am concerned that this discussion could go on with > point and counter point ad infinitum. I'm more interested in having > bylaws than in having perfect bylaws. We can amend them as necessary > as we go. > > Alan. > > > On Oct 4, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Thejas M Nair wrote: > > > The bylaws look good, but I would like to raise two issues - > > > > Shouldn't the majority requirement for changing the bylaws be more > > strict > > than those required by the actions in bylaws ? > > For example, the bylaw for removing a committer requires a > > consensus, but > > for changing this by-law requires only 2/3rd majority. Ie, > > effectively, > > 2/3rd majority can remove a committer ! > > Should changing the bylaws should require consensus as well? > > I don't want to make it consensus to change the bylaws, as that would > make changing bylaws _very_ hard. I want removing a committer to be > _very_ hard. > > And, in defense of having changing procedure require a lower vote than > the procedure, I would invoke the practices of the US Senate. A > simple majority vote would suffice to remove the need for 3/5 majority > (60 votes) for cloture, yet even when one party has 50 but not 60 > votes (as has been common lately) neither has removed it for fear of > having it used against them later. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#United_States > for details. > > > > > Should we consider another unlikely situation ? - What if two > > committers are > > unable to communicate for long duration for some reason (stuck on some > > lonely island without internet!)? Actions that require consensus > > approval > > would not be possible. (you can't remove a inactive voter and then > > have > > another consensus vote because two voters are missing). > > Should we have a maximum duration for casting votes that require > > consensus ? > > (2 months ?) > > My attempt to deal with the Lost scenario was the addition of the > sentence saying that votes should not be called when we knew members > would be unavailable. > > Also, I want to clarify the difference between inactive committers/PMC > members and members being removed. Moving to emeritus status is > automatic upon inactivity. ("A PMC member is considered 'emeritus' by > their own declaration or by not contributing in any form to the > project for over six months. An emeritus member may request > reinstatement to the PMC, which will be sufficient to restore him or > her to active PMC member.") Also, moving to emeritus status is not > considered a bad thing. It simply reflects that the person is no > longer able to be a part of the project on a regular basis. Removing > someone by vote is a bad thing, akin to being voted off the island (to > switch island TV show analogies), is certainly not automatic, and > should only happen in extreme circumstances. > > Alan. > > > >
