Have been thinking along the same lines - although I wasn't able to capture the essence as nicely as Andrew :-).
To rephrase Andrew's tricameral process, recasting with veto in mind ...
1. A Sponsoring Entity votes to accept a candidate 2. The Sponsoring Entity votes to exit the candidate. 3. Incubator PMC hold the right to veto.
This would bring us to a unicameral solution while maintaining appropriate checks and balances through the diligence of the Incubator.
Stephen.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
So we're yack yacking about the incubator (again). The incubator AFAICT replicated a tricameral vote. To release you must have:
1. A PMC vote to accept it 2. The committers of the project vote that they're ready to leave 3. The incubator PMC vote to let them out.
The only country that ever invested significantly in such a system was
Poland (other examples exist but the other bodies are subservient and
generally advise more than consent). This was *one* of the times it was
wiped off the map.
I would suppose #2 would the be the most vested group and #1 be the second most (substituted for the board in the top level situation)... I'd suppose #3 would be the least vested group.
The point? None, I just like pointing my finger childishly when someone does something silly (like create a tricameral voting system... pretty funny, spell check doesn't recognize it, though it finds bicameral)...
-Andy
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
