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

[Joseph George]

If it is a University UG, should we insist on some kind basic  
continuity plan - for eg: A faculty advisor who will be a member?

Or, would that be discrimination?

~Joe

On 13-Feb-08, at 7:15 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote:

> Mads Toftum wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:04:11PM +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>>
>>> (1) Core Contributor -- Nominated by a Core Contributor, three +1  
>>> votes,
>>> no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can vote.
>>>
>>
>> I can't really see much harm in letting Contributors nominate as  
>> well as
>> long as you keep the 3 Core Contributor votes requirement.
>>
>>> (2) Contributor -- Self nominated or nominated by a Contributor  
>>> or Core
>>> Contributor, no -1 votes, no minimum or maximum +1 votes, duration
>>> within five days, only CCs can vote.
>>>
>>>
>> This seems a bit odd to me. Effectively you can nominate yourself and
>> slip under the radar if nobody hates you enough to vote no?
> Well, if you put it that way ... :)
>
>> I think it
>> would be more "balanced" if you changed this to mirror the  
>> procedure in
>> (1) and just extended it to accept nominations/votes from  
>> Contributors.
>>
> Ok, that's a good suggestion to open it up a bit.
>
>>
>>> (3) Project and/or User Group -- Proposal based on the new format  
>>> below,
>>> one +1 vote, no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can  
>>> vote.
>>>
>>>
>> This one looks fine - getting many people to vote for user groups in
>> places they've never heard of is probably too big of a requirement.
>>
>
> I'm much less concerned about the Contributor and Core Contributor
> voting, but we do need to make getting UGs easier and faster.  So,  
> cool...
>
> Jim
>
> -- 
> Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> advocacy-discuss mailing list
> advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss