Sorry again for my slow response. I haven't been as able to keep up with TSC
extracted the part that was most important in my mind (voting rules),
and concluded that the rest might be doable just by talking and
developing an informal consent.
We might consider eventually having multiple documents that aren't too large if we
this level of detail in rules, but you have a good point that for now we probably
want to over legalize our team.
I realise it is a bit vague, but I wasn’t able to come up with a more
clear statement, which might indeed be useful. Do you have something in
mind that would fit the purpose better?
I just wanted to double check. Whether something can be revoted could become a matter
of disagreement down the line, though I guess we can always use informal consensus or
vote again if warranted.
I made a
suggestion on the acquisition, so I think you can now make a suggestion
for removal drawing from the points we have already mentioned (like
inactivity for one year or so).
There are 3 ways by which a person can be removed from the core team:
1. The person can request removal formally
2. If the person does not show any activity for a year, they will be removed. The
activity required is one forum/tracker post (advancing TSC discussions) or commit in
source control per year.
When two weeks are remaining before a person reaches the one year mark for inactivity, an
will send an email to the inactive person asking about their involvement. If they do not
a posting or commit, or if they do not respond, they will be removed from the team.
3. The team reserves the right to remove any person at any time, for any reason, through a
requires a two thirds majority, and the candidate for removal is not allowed to cast a
vote. The team
is expected to try to follow fair criteria for such removals and consider changing the
rules if repeated
Upon removal a person will be removed from the github organization. They can be readded
at any time by
meeting the criteria for a regular team addition.
datahead, what do you think of the term meritocracy? I know it is
nominally correct, but somehow it has this indication of a small group
that wants to usurpate over others... If you are in favour of it as
well, I’d also be ok with changing “democratically legitimated” in the
preamble to “meritocratically legitimated”.
I think the term will stick out and that people may get worried about it. I don't
think most people
will question our usage of the term democratic, but if it is a concern it would be better
to use no -ocracy term
at all than something that might stir controversy later. I do appreciate Luiji's
attention to detail on