On 04/03/19 11:00, Luis Ressel wrote:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 11:54:39PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> For the purposes of this document, a Committer is a contributor to
> Adélie Linux that has write access to packages.git.
Fixed, thank you.
> 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.
The intent is that regular contributors to a Project that are not
Committers may still be recognised on the project's contributor list.
For example, maybe upstream KDE or MATE or LXQt developers may
contribute to the respective Adélie desktop project some day. We could
list them, if they want to be listed. But it is not a requirement.
> 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
"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?
> 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.)
Fixed, thank you.
> 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.
The resource being requested (Web space associated with that Project)
has been permanently removed at this point. Redirects can do a lot of
damage and are almost never helpful to users that want to read the
documentation that was present before. (Looking at you, Fedora wiki.)
> 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
Questionable grammar in the middle sentence. Either s/are listed/is
given/ or s/a formal declaration of //.
Went with "is provided". Thank you.
> Expulsion of a member of the Platform Group may be initiated by
> either the Platform Group itself, or a member of Community
"by any member of the PG or ComArb"; the current wording leaves
unclear how many PG members are required to initiate the process.
Fixed, thank you.
> 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.
> 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 )?
Time as a PG member; this has been clarified.
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux