Document voting process for `formal-vote` patches
A while ago it was decided[0] that motions, before being merged/approved, should be discussed and voted on during the Technical Committee meetings. This worked well back in the days but it's not necessary anymore. This was carried over even though we now have an asynchronous voting system and it was never properly documented or re-evaluated. This patch documents how formal-vote patches are voted on and eventually approved. [0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/013339.html Change-Id: Ie84bacb9038d82bdfb518724a8e6fb726f5a0316
This commit is contained in:
parent
fbed10f195
commit
d01ad06a8a
|
@ -76,16 +76,23 @@ minimum of 7 people present). Non-members affected by a given discussion are
|
|||
strongly encouraged to participate in the meeting and voice their opinion,
|
||||
though only TC members can ultimately cast a vote.
|
||||
|
||||
.. _charter-motions-section:
|
||||
|
||||
Motions
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Before being put to a vote, motions presented before the TC should be discussed
|
||||
publicly on the development mailing-list for a minimum of 4 business days to
|
||||
give a chance to the wider community to express their opinion. TC members can
|
||||
vote positively, negatively, or abstain. Decisions need more positive votes
|
||||
than negative votes (ties mean the motion is rejected), and a minimum of
|
||||
positive votes of at least one third of the total number of TC members (rounded
|
||||
up: in a 13-member committee that means a minimum of 5 approvers).
|
||||
Motions presented before the TC should be discussed publicly to give a chance to
|
||||
the wider community to express their opinion. Motions should therefore be
|
||||
announced on the development mailing list and posted to Gerrit for review for a
|
||||
minimum of 7 calendar days.
|
||||
|
||||
TC members can vote positively, negatively, or abstain (using the
|
||||
"RollCall-Vote" in Gerrit). Decisions need more positive votes than negative
|
||||
votes (ties mean the motion is rejected), and a minimum of positive votes of at
|
||||
least one third of the total number of TC members (rounded up: in a 13-member
|
||||
committee that means a minimum of 5 approvers). After a motion receives
|
||||
sufficient votes to pass, it must stay open for further comments and voting for
|
||||
a minimum of 3 calendar days.
|
||||
|
||||
Election for PTL seats
|
||||
======================
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -2,10 +2,11 @@
|
|||
House rules for governance changes approval
|
||||
=============================================
|
||||
|
||||
While most of the governance changes call for a formal discussion and
|
||||
vote by the Technical Committee membership, we also have a number of
|
||||
exceptions to that general rule, in order to speed up the processing
|
||||
of smaller changes. This document lists those "house rules" for reference.
|
||||
While most of the governance changes follow the rules described in the
|
||||
:ref:`charter-motions-section` section and call for a formal discussion and vote
|
||||
by the Technical Committee membership, we also have a number of exceptions to
|
||||
that general rule, in order to speed up the processing of smaller changes. This
|
||||
document lists those "house rules" for reference.
|
||||
|
||||
Typo fixes
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue