[vote draft] Voting procedure #205
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Douglas Stebila <[email protected]>
governance/voting_procedure.md
Outdated
| - The outcome of the vote should have some effect on the contents of the TSC repository, such as editing an existing file or adding a new file to record or implement the policy decision being made. | ||
| 4. Motions may be submitted as a draft PR to solicit discussion or feedback or changes, and then converted into a full PR once the motion is ready for a vote. | ||
| 5. When the motion is ready for a vote, the TSC chair will request PR reviews from all voting TSC members. Members can vote in favour by approving the pull request or leaving a comment indicating their approval; members can vote opposed by leaving a comment indicating their disapproval. | ||
| 6. The motion will be considered passed once a majority of TSC members, excluding the chair, have voted in favour. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Passing a motion only when a majority votes in favour risks deadlock to the project (when sufficient voting members don't care to vote; technical contributions are going down, so administrative contributions such as this may as well). I'd therefore suggest rephrasing 6 as follows:
The motion will be considered passed once a majority of voting TSC members have voted in favour within 3 weeks of the vote (PR) being opened or once a majority of TSC members have voted in favour, whichever occurs earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@baentsch, wouldn’t a deadlock mean that the motion failed? To ensure certainty, we could simply state that a deadlock would necessitate revisiting the discussion and a revote, after which the result would be final.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wouldn’t a deadlock mean that the motion failed?
That's precisely the point: A motion would fail when "enough" members are not sufficiently interested (or following "behind closed doors" interests not) to participate; I'm not sure that a further discussion then helps: People not interested to vote (or state their opinion openly by GH before) won't be likely to state their opinion if they can make a motion fail by just not voting.
we could simply state that a deadlock would necessitate revisiting the discussion and a revote, after which the result would be final
But the revote would have to follow different rules then to not again allow non-voting members an option to "silently" stop a motion. My argument is to not permit this to begin with and allow the project to move forward faster again (by clearly stating "whoever doesn't have time to vote within x days/weeks doesn't get to influence the decision").
Signed-off-by: Douglas Stebila <[email protected]>
This attempts to codify our current TSC voting procedure.
Fixes #12.