I've revised the wiki to read:
"PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ w/the
simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and plan
to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. *This is strictly an
exercise to get quorum count and in no way re
Fair point. I think using the number of votes here as the first roll call
is reasonable. Good suggestion.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7
> votes is any less problematic, as it has no rec
Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7 votes
is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas roll call at
worst waits until the next roll call).
Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take 50%,
and 7 if we take 66%
Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of
increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's more
than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed into
a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though.
Might be useful to tak
It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately
afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've conducted
no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we call on the
rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call.
Also, we d
I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki.
Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote
ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modi
> If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the
wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again.
Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can
modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's
not fair to those
One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or
super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up
w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that
route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally
revising t
So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread:
changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple
> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For
> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11
> binding votes participating. Of that 11,
