On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:47:31PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On 04/03/19 11:00, Luis Ressel wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:54:39PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
>
> >
> >> 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."
>
>
> I'm happier with the way it is worded in the charter. Is there a
> specific issue you have with it?
The current wording just has a slightly awkward flow (IMO). But you're
the native speaker, not me. :)
> >> 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.)
>
>
> How is this?
>
> A vote on whether to expel the member must be held at least 48 hours
> after the explusion announcement, to avoid emotionally charged voting.
> During this time, the member may make a statement if they desire to do so.
Sounds great, save for the "explusion" typo.
--
Cheers, Luis
Received on Thu Apr 11 2019 - 21:14:04 UTC