[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes

On 10/5/21 11:04 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
One minor clarification: I was thinking about removing the 2:1 *override*
requirement, but I don't think we should remove the 2:1 *make*

Part of the discussion about the TC was that they might deadlock on _which_ option to choose, which then needs to go to a GR. If this happens, the TC did not make a decision, so the developers are using their power to _make_ a decision, not _override_ one. With what you have proposed above, the 2:1 supermajority would still apply. That may or may not be desirable. But was that your intended result?

There's some weirdness here with maintainer overrides.  I'm not sure if it
should be possible to override a maintainer with a simple majority GR.
(By that, I mean I'm literally not sure; I can see arguments either way.)

Overriding a maintainer by a GR seems like a pretty serious thing. If nothing else, it's probably pretty embarrassing. I'd imagine those proposing, sponsoring, and voting in favor of such a resolution understand that. If we get a majority of developers voting to override, that seems sufficient to me (in the context where the 2:1 TC make supermajority is already being removed; I'm not necessarily suggesting this change standalone).


Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: