[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team

[Jonathan Craig]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>
>>> So, especially given that not all people read their email every day,
>>> it is better to give room for that, with a 1 week minimum discussion
>>> period for policy.
>>
>> A week seems alright for me. What about a maximum after which, if
>> there's no consensus we proceed to a vote? 10 days seems enough and
>> prevents evaporation.
>
>
> Some discussions take longer than 10 days. I dont think putting an
> automatic vote trigger in place is neccessarily the right thing to do.
>
> If on the other hand, discussion has stalled for [x] amount of time, I
> think it would be fair to allow for any concerned party to call for a
> vote, which should then be acted upon.
> The tricky bit is in objectively defining "stalled" (vs "being
> contended"), and what a good value of "x" is.

The easy answer is after 10 days a majority can force a vote, but then
they may just go ahead and vote the decision.  I would hope that one
would not simply cast a vote to stifle discussion, but its a risk that
must be taken.

It seems like your concern is over protecting the minority voice.  So,
what are the minority rights? Do we have the equivalent of a
filibuster?  Should the minority have the right to block progress?