Re: [Gdbheads] Let's resolve this quickly

[Stan Shebs]

Jim Blandy wrote:

> Here's a proposal:
>
>    A vote begins with a proposal posted to address@hidden, whose
>    subject begins with "call for vote", and containing a proposal for
>    people to support or disapprove of.  A committee member votes by
>    replying to that message saying "I vote yes." or "I vote no.".
>    The vote continues for at least a week (40 business hours), or
>    until at least half the committee has voted one way or the other.
>    If half the committee has still not voted on a proposal after four
>    weeks (160 business hours), the proposal is dead.
Sounds as good an idea as any. That was one thing that never got
resolved in the f2f meetings developing the original SC; lots of
talk about what we going to make people do or not do (yeah right),
and not much about how to resolve an issue and move on.

> This rule has a quorum: one half the committee.  Should that be
> higher?  Lower?
Given the general difficulty of getting timely responses, 1/2 is a
pretty high bar, which is good for stability I suppose - sort of
like amending the US constitution.

> Votes are public.  Should they be private?  I think they should be
> public; the decision is being made with the public's trust.
Private. As a result of various conversations with GCC SC people
over the past 5-6 years, I think it's better to have the SC
speaking with one voice. This shouldn't be like real-life politics,
where you have factions wired into a zero-sum game, and where
stabbing people in the back is just one more tactic (remember what
I said about trust?). Public GCC SC votes would tend to alter
the patch lobbying process as randoms start pitching their stuff to
particular SC members thought favorable, in the hopes of outflanking
maintainers.

Everything else seems sensible. So if you're in favor and I'm in favor,
that's two votes - how many more do we need? :-)

Stan