On Sun, Feb 9, 2014, at 06:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Stephen Connolly > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 72h for a vote is not a hard and fast rule (you just need a good reason for > > why you are going shorter and from what I have seen, the board would > > probably be ok as long as protections are put in place to safeguard the > > community) > > By now, I think that we've demonstrated in this thread that scheduled > votes with a small window (12-24 hours) are practical.
Have we? I don't believe anyone has expressed the real justification for a 72hr window, which is to enable the vote to be *inclusive*. That is, inclusive of people who don't live in the same timezone, and who perhaps don't work on the codebase full time. Yes, a 12hr window might make it possible for everyone to have at least 4 waking hours in that window, but what if that is your 4hrs of taking your kids to school, or cooking dinner for the family. Or if they contribute in their spare time, and that 4hrs is whilst they are at work. If the project chooses that particular 12hr window as a fixed thing, it effectively excludes you from the vote. I am in no way attempting to argue that 72hrs votes is the only way to achieve this particular aim, but I do not consider this issue as addressed in any way in this thread yet. So: If we are going to shorten release vote durations, how do we ensure inclusivity, both of current, and potential future contributors, irrespective of timezone, work pattern, etc? Upayavira
