governance: Raise the bar for changes in membership and governance policy. #1222
Conversation
…y limit, and raising the bar for changes in membership and governance.
| @@ -129,7 +129,16 @@ When an agenda item has appeared to reach a consensus the moderator | |||
| will ask "Does anyone object?" as a final call for dissent from the | |||
| consensus. | |||
|
|
|||
| Agenda items should be tagged at least 24 hours in advance. If an item | |||
| is added less than 24 hours before the meeting it cannot be brought to | |||
| a vote. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe change to specify that it is voting only, not bringing it up for discussion.
|
+1 calling @iojs/tc |
|
+1 ... looks good. |
|
A little background: the assumption in voting is now that people not in attendance abstain from the vote. That is only fair, and not open to abuse, if there is ample notice of what might be voted on in each meeting. As the TC grows and the number of potential issues grows it will start to make sense for some people to not attend meetings in which nothing they are directly involved in or interested in is being addressed. I think that's fine, but that means we have to be diligent about getting items on the agenda ahead of time. |
|
+1 |
| @@ -79,9 +79,9 @@ a standard TC motion. | |||
| Changes to TC membership should be posted in the agenda, and may be | |||
| suggested as any other agenda item (see "TC Meetings" below). | |||
|
|
|||
| No more than 1/3 of the TC members may be affiliated with the same | |||
| No more than 1/4 of the TC members may be affiliated with the same | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh good point, I think we had forgotten there's only 6 TC members.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That adds an upper limit on the ratio, but if the TC is going to grow over time it may be wise to also add an upper limit on the actual number of individuals affiliated with the same employer that can be on the TC. Sort of depends on how large the TC is expected to get though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But eh, do you want to kick me out or @bnoordhuis ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if the restriction was the lesser of 1/3 or 3(or 4?) people so that with a small TC of 6 you still have 2 people, but if it grows to a lot more you don't end up with massive over-representation from any one company.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I must have miss-counted the current voting members, I thought we were up to 8. We originally wanted 1/4 but moved it down because we didn't have enough voting members.
|
+1 |
1 similar comment
|
+1 |
| If an agenda item cannot reach a consensus a TC member can call for | ||
| either a closing vote or a vote to table the issue to the next | ||
| meeting. The call for a vote must be seconded by a majority of the TC | ||
| or else the discussion will continue. Simple majority wins. | ||
| or else the discussion will continue. Simple majority wins, those not | ||
| in attendance abstain. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Disagree. We should be able to email in our vote if circumstances don't allow us to attend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's quite reasonable so long as there is an expected time frame within
which such emails can be expected.
On Mar 20, 2015 3:52 PM, "Trevor Norris" notifications@github.com wrote:
In GOVERNANCE.md
#1222 (comment):If an agenda item cannot reach a consensus a TC member can call for
either a closing vote or a vote to table the issue to the next
meeting. The call for a vote must be seconded by a majority of the TC
-or else the discussion will continue. Simple majority wins.
+or else the discussion will continue. Simple majority wins, those not
+in attendance abstain.Disagree. We should be able to email in our vote if circumstances don't
allow us to attend.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/1222/files#r26882797.
|
+1 ! |
|
I think the 1/3 -> 1/4 change may need a little discussion and justification |
|
I think both @bnoordhuis & @piscisaureus should still be TC, so -1 on that 1/3 -> 1/4 as it stands |
|
Let's do the phrasing this way: "1/3 with an exception to @bnoordhuis" or @piscisaureus |
|
Closing while we don't have enough TC members to reach the new company minimum. Great discussion though, and I may send another PR just to raise the bar for governance and TC changes to 2/3. |
Clearing up some of the voting mechanics, hardening the single company limit, and raising the bar for changes in membership and governance.