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@ 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@. 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