[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>
> Phil: You're happy with the 'against the proposal' side of the vote
> writeup?  (No longer labelled as 'status quo.')
>
> I'm thinking July 1 - July 7 (GMT).

I would like to request an "amendment" to the ballot itself.
The labeling has changed, but semantically, the meaning will be seen
as the same.

I request that there be an option for those people who see a value in
required 2nd party review, to be able to register that opinion with
their vote, separate from whether they support the new mechanisms for
package release flow.

As an example, based on the most recent ballot sample, my proposed
single added line would look like this:

A) I accept the proposal
*B) I would like to see the proposal modified to have some form of 2nd
party mandated review
C) I do not accept the proposal
D) I abstain


The specific nature of the review, or persons doing the review, will
remain open;
the purpose of this vote choice would not be to pick a specific
mechanism, but only to register that there is sufficient interest to
warrant discussion on it.

The "2nd party review"  might be via a formal review team. It might be
via an elected review manager. It might be through some other means.
It might be at initial entry, or it might be only for migration from
unstable to current. We havent discussed those things.

Rather than spend more time discuss those things right now, I'm
suggesting this be inserted as an option into this current vote, as a
time saver.

If either A or B were chosen, coding, development, etc. on the new
mechanisms would still proceed, so there would be virtually no "delay"
in that area either way. The only difference between the two, would be
that if a noticable amount of people voted for B, it would then be
shown as worthwhile to discuss options on review further, while work
continued to bring it to


Contrariwise, if there was only one person voting for B, it would be
clear that further discussion in that area would be a waste of time,
and that the issue is dead.