Re: governance should probably come first - past models and next steps

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 3:04 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos(a)systemhalted.org&gt; wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:20 AM Ricardo Wurmus <rekado(a)elephly.net&gt; wrote: > > Mark Galassi <mark(a)galassi.org&gt; 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. > > Thoughts? 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?