On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:04 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:20 AM Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> Mark Galassi <mark@galassi.org> writes:
> > Does anyone have any opinions on whether we should proceed even
> > without feeling a deep inner drive for governance?  Or should we
> > wait
> > for further elements to fall in place?
> As I see it, we have at least three open issues here:
>   - who can vote?
>   - how do we decide?
>   - will we ever decide to let other packages join GNU?
> (The last one is particularly inflammatory, because it is a
> head-on disagreement with GNU leadership of the past decades, so I
> wouldn’t mind delaying this until the first two issues are
> solved.)
> With this third item in mind, who should be able to vote on issues
> affecting GNU?  Should we attempt to avoid giving the cultures of
> large projects more weight due to their larger number of
> contributors?

Who can vote?
- If you endorse the social contract.
- If you abide by the code of conduct.
- If you have commit rights to a project included in the GNU Assembly.
- Then you get a vote.

How do we decide?
- Proposal for vote. Seconded. Waiting period. Vote (pick a scheme).

Will we ever decide to let other packages join GNU?
- Maybe some day. I don't think we should do that for now.
- We should decide to add packages to the GNU Assembly and pick a
process for that.
- I think the set of packages in the GNU Assembly are derived from
members joining.


That all sounds right to me.  Specifically the principle that projects don't vote, people vote.

What level of consensus do we want to require on an up/down vote?  2/3?