[Swift-devel] [VOTE] Mike to be dev.globus project chair

[Michael Wilde]

On 6/18/08 7:25 PM, Ben Clifford wrote:
>> By dev.globus rules as far as I can tell, everyone on the developer's 
>> list can vote but only the committers votes are binding.
> 
> The guidelines define no specific process for the election of a chair 
> other than:
> 
>> Each Globus project is required to name a project Chair via some process 
>> defined by the project's committers.
 >
> Specifically they do not mandate that either of the electoral mechanisms, 
> 'Majority approval' or 'Consensus approval' are used.

Sounds reasonable. I proposed a vote for that process, and the vote was 
conducted. If I said that the vote was proposed because dev.globus 
guidelines said we need to vote on this issue, I stand corrected. I dont 
recall what I wrote - and dont think it was critical.

As far as I can see, your statement above is unrelated to the issue of 
votes being binding.

> Tibi, as a non-committer, does not get to define the process by which a 
> project chair is named. However, he might participate in that process, 
> depending on how it is defined.
> 
> Should that process be defined (by the committers) to be 'majority 
> approval' then he would be able to participate in the majority approval 
> vote as a 'contributor' and hence a 'member'; in that respect his vote 
> would count in the second clause of the majority approval requirement that 
> there be more +1 votes than -1 votes; it would not count towards the first 
> clause requirement that there be at least three binding +1 votes.

OK, sounds pretty complex, but I *think* it makes sense. I ask that we 
all be patient with each other as we figure this out. Clearly we can get 
into all sorts of parliamentary issues, but I hope that common sense 
prevails.

>> The guidelines ask that committers indicate this with the string 
>> "(binding)" after their vote, as in "+1 (binding)".
> 
> They make no such request. They assert that a committer *may* add that 
> indication, in order to simplify a tally. My interpretation of the 
> guidelines is that placing such a mark or not placing such a mark does not 
> affect the nature of the particular committer's vote in any way.

Yes, thats what I was assuming it meant, too.

> On a non-guideline related note:
> 
>> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:35:49 -0500
>> The vote closes at 5:00 PM CDT today, June 18.
> 
> That is an extremely short voting window not even covering one 24h period; 
> given the global nature of Swift development, this is a bad precedent to 
> set for vote duration.

Agreed - I apologize - I was trying to rush this through because I 
thought it was a trivial issue, I didnt want to "declare" my self chair 
without a vote, and thought we could get it done quickly.  I agree with 
you though, we should not rush a vote.

Again - please let common sense prevail. The dev.globus rules were 
intended to help large projects make decisions. In the same way that 
dev.globus should not interfere with pre-existing infrastructure that 
works well, we should not let it turn a decision making process that was 
already working well into something that is suddenly burdensome.

If thats happening, its not dev.globus's fault - we're doing it to 
ourselves.

No one in dev.globus management is going to question any decisions our 
group makes on Swift development, as long as no contributors object.
If they do, then thats being counter-productive and we should not accept it.

I feel that if we make a good faith and common sense attempt to run an 
open process, then all should work well and all should be happy.

To go out of our way to dicker about rules and procedures, just because 
dev.globus had the burden of defining such things, is unproductive.

- Mike