[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Maciej Bliziński]

2011/6/30 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 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.

Proposal processing goes like this:

1. A proposal is written
2. A vote is held, where options are: accepting, not accepting, abstaining
3. If the vote is conclusive and positive, the proposal is implemented

If you have an idea for another proposal, you can write it up and put
it up for the vote.  The same procedure will be applied.  Your
argument is that your proposal would be similar to the current one.
If this is the case, and the current proposal is accepted, you only
need to write up the difference, and we can have the other vote.

My role as the secretary is to implement the vote procedure, and the
procedure is described as above.  I'm sorry, but even if it is
suboptimal from your point of view, I am obliged to protect it and
ensure that the vote process reaches completion.

Maciej