On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:54:39PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> Projects
> ========
> For the purposes of this document, a Committer is a contributor to Adélie Linux
> that has write access to packages.git.
s/that/who/ perhaps?
> Projects will be granted a Web space for any documentation they feel
> appropriate. All Projects will be required to maintain a list of Committers
> involved in the Project on this Web space. Projects may additionally maintain
> a list of frequent non-Committer contributors as well, but they are not
> required to do so.
The last sentence seems like unneccessary noise to me.
> Creating a Project
> ------------------
>
> A Project may be proposed for creation at any time by a Committer, via sending
> an email to the adelie-project_at_ mailing list. This proposal must be approved
> by a simple majority of the Platform Group.
"Committers may propose the creation of a Project with an email to
adelie-project(a). This proposal then requires approval by a simple
majority of the Platform Group."
> Disbanding a Project
> --------------------
> When a Project is disbanded, its mailing list must be made read-only, but its
> archives must not be destroyed.
s/, .*/and the archives [must be] retained./ (Sounds better to me that
way, but either version is fine.)
> The Platform Group may decide whether to archive or destroy the
> Project's Web space. In the event of destruction, URLs must be set to
> return a '410 Gone' response.
The 2nd sentence is an unneccessary technical detail, and it precludes
setting up a redirect, even though that may make more sense in some
cases.
> Interest Groups
> ===============
> Interest Groups will be granted Web space for any documentation they feel
> appropriate. Interest Groups, like Projects, shall maintain a list of
> Committers on this Web space. They may, additionally, list non-Committer
> regular contributors, though this is not required.
Last sentence: As above.
> Platform Group
> ==============
>
> This charter, as with most of the Adélie Linux system, depends heavily on a
> functional Platform Group, which acts as the "root" of the structure. As such,
> a formal declaration of the Platform Group's responsibilities are listed in
> this section. Additionally, addition and removal of members of the Platform
> Group are discussed.
Questionable grammar in the middle sentence. Either s/are listed/is
given/ or s/a formal declaration of //.
> Removal
> -------
>
> Expulsion of a member of the Platform Group may be initiated by either the
> Platform Group itself, or a member of Community Arbitration.
"by any member of the PG or ComArb"; the current wording leaves unclear
how many PG members are required to initiate the process.
> All members of the Platform Group vote except the member being expelled. A
> three-fourths majority of members must approve the expulsion. If less than
> four members of the Platform Group remain to vote, then the largest possible
> supermajority is required to approve the expulsion.
Before the vote, the member being expelled should be granted the
opportunity to make a statement. It might also be a good idea to enforce
a few days of delay to avoid rash decisions. I think the affected member
should be barred from voting altogether until the expulsion process has
concluded, to prevent them from casting purposefully disruptive votes
on other matters. (This creates an obvious DOS opportunity though.)
> Voting
> ------
>
> In the event of a Platform Group vote resulting in a tie, the vote of the
> current Project Lead will be carried. If the Project Lead is absent, the vote
> of the senior-most present member of the Platform Group will be carried.
Thanks for this change, I like it much better this way. Which type of
seniority is meant here, though? Time as a Committer or time as a PG
member (or perhaps even biological age :P )?
Cheers,
Luis
Received on Wed Apr 03 2019 - 16:03:24 UTC