[advocacy-discuss] Advocacy Voting and Project Proposal Process (draft)

[Jim Grisanzio]

Shawn Walker wrote:
> *disclaimer: just reading from the constitution; not my personal view*
>
> It looks like your proposed procedures fit within the guidelines, but
> I just wanted to point out that the constitution has some pre-defined
> limitations on voting.
>
> *end disclaimer*
>
> According to Article VIII, Section 8.4 of the constitution, the
> following procedure is to be used for Core Contributor additions:
>
> Consensus
>
> At least three (3) binding +1 votes and no -1 votes (i.e., unanimous
> with a minimal quorum of three votes).
>
> Putbacks (when subjected to vote). Initiate new project. Terminate
> project. Addition of Core Contributor. Removal of Core Contributor
> (subject must abstain).
>
> From:
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/governance/#ARTICLE_VIII.__Community_Group_Voting_Procedures
>
> Cheers,
>   
hey ...

Yep. We've been trying to follow those guidelines specifically. And I 
would agree with most of them, but I want to make it easier to propose 
and get approval for a UG project/list. The OGB's Project Instantiation 
Policy provides the flexibility we need: 
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/policies/project-instantiation.txt

Community Groups are encouraged to adopt their own policies for
discussing and approving Project proposals, including timeout periods.
Groups are advised that Article VIII of the OpenSolaris Constitution
provides substantial guidance in this area.


Also, just from a language perspective, the Constitution and the Project 
Instantiation Policy are difficult documents to read and understand for 
many people because English is their second language.  So, at the very 
least the text explaining all this needs to be substantially shorter and 
easier, but the process should change to be easier too. I'm ok with 
keeping a high bar to be a CC, but not to get a UG.

Jim
-- 
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris