[csw-maintainers] [csw-devel] [PATCH] opencsw-policy: Copyright notice

[Philip Brown]

2011/3/17 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
> 2011/3/17 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>
>> There are multiple things I could say here, but I'll keep it short:
>> first and formost.. as I already said...  it deviated from the proceedure that
>> **you** said you would follow! That is, putting up the ballot for
>> review, before the actual vote process starts.
>
> I understand that point, I was asking about other points.


You requested above, a reference to "[a standard procedure]" of voting.
I did not previously do any comparisons; what I wrote was my opinion
of what fair voting practices should be like.

but since you asked for a comparison, I just took a look at our
favourite point of comparison.
And found things like

http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-A
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
 ....

That goes into even more hairy detail and parliamentary style
procedure than I was suggesting. But, there, you have a reference to
"a standard".
(fyi, voting specifics, are also spread out a bit among other bits,
such as section 4.2)

I will also note that their *minimum* discussion time for a proposal,
is *2* weeks. And that time, is counted from when a specific, "formal
proposal" is raised. Not from the time an idea is first brought up as
a discussion point.
Additionally, the specific proposal, is frozen in wording. THEN it is
discussed. and the voting is done on the specifically discussed and
frozen proposal, not (whatever the secretary feels like wording it as,
at time of the ballot)

PS; they also have a requirement of a proposal summary as well.
Details on that and other fussy details, can be found at
http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal
Although oddly, they limit the summary to 60 chars