On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:09:10AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 20-03-2012 22:34:14 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> From my point of view, both decisions could be made at the same meeting:
> >> 1? Should we discuss it? -> Yes -> go to 2? // No -> end
> >> 2? Discuss alternatives
> Actually, my plan was not only to discuss 2?, but to vote on it in the
> same meeting.
No point in jumping the gun. Frankly considering the issues of the
various proposals haven't really been fully fleshed out up until that
wiki page (prior, they were at best in PM authors heads), and
that's not counting the level of misunderstandings people had
about it (and likely still do). I'd rather see people properly
consider it rather than try to fit it into a single council meeting.
> > IMO we don't have to waste a (part of a) meeting on deciding if we
> > want to address the issue at all. We (council) should just reach
> > that conclusion here on-list, so we can prepare for the actual votes
> > in actual council meeting.
> Or the option of keeping the status quo could be one of the
> alternatives of the vote. It would be six alternatives then.
> I can prepare a Condorcet (Schulze method) vote, just for the case
> that we don't get an absolute majority for one of them.
Condorcet should be dev wide imo, rather than council. I'm certainly
not of the belief we should do group wide votes on every decision, but
this sort of thing is likely to generally piss people off and not have
any clear majority on its own- thus would go that route.
More importantly, while PM authors have a definite say from a
technical standpoint (that metadata.xml proposal for example has nasty
implications for performance/cache), it's devs who are going to feel
the impact of it the most in their workflow. They're views matter
fairly heavily (as long as it's not a technical nightmare of course).