Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:05:11 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: dg@root.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers Message-ID: <19981228160511.Z12346@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199812280527.VAA07758@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 09:27:33PM -0800 References: <19981228155433.X12346@freebie.lemis.com> <199812280527.VAA07758@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 27 December 1998 at 21:27:33 -0800, Mike Smith wrote: >> On Sunday, 27 December 1998 at 21:20:01 -0800, David Greenman wrote: >>>>> I don't like this; it grants any single core member power of veto, and >>>>> that's a current problem with our system already. >>>> >>>> I could see changing it to a majority vote, but not much less >>>> stringent than that. Remember, this is about *removing* stuff and the >>>> historical propensity for our users to scream bloody murder when the >>>> furby driver, committed by a demented developer at 3am while under the >>>> influence of 7 bottles of cough syrup, is taken out. We want to make >>>> it just a little harder than normal to remove existing functionality. >>> >>> I might mention that the policy I proposed to Jordan didn't say >>> "unanimous"...it didn't say "majority", either, but that's actually what >>> I had in mind. Mike's comment about a quorum is a good one, though, and >>> I think this needs to be a majority of core members, not a majority of >>> those who vote on the issue. Does this satisfy the concerns? >> >> You might consider somewhere between unanimous (difficult enough to >> achieve that it might cripple the idea) and a simple majority. How >> does two thirds sound? > > How would you count that? Two thirds total core membership, or a > two-thirds majority of counted votes? Yes. I was deliberately leaving that open to further discussion. > Two thirds requires a fairly high quorum count, which is normally > appropriate if the body is likely to be partisan or otherwise > divided. I was thinking that if core was fairly unanimous on things > that quorum should be quite low (50-60%). If core is fairly unanimous, the value of the quorum becomes less important. My main concern is that when there are two roughly equal bodies of opinion, the result should tend towards ``If it aint broke, don't fix it''. As regards who votes, I've never been an advocate of ``one man, one vote''. I'd be quite happy to leave it to a vote of the core team. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981228160511.Z12346>