3. The vote was called even though my key points raised in the previous
discussion were entirely ignored.
4. The options presented in the vote were cherry-picked,
- to include strawmen (whitelisting, blacklisting users -- which obviously
no one would be interested in implementing),
- to exclude relevant proposed changes from my messages.
Let us use this case as an opportunity to improve the voting procedure,
regarding the points (3) and (4).
The general procedure of sage-devel voting is currenly:
(1) Proposal: A developer (the initiator) proposes an actionable item P1,
P2.
(2) Discussion: People discuss on merits and demerits of these items.
(3) Voting: People vote on choices [Do P1], [Do P2], [Do nothing].
(4) Implement the result: the initiator implements the voting result in a
github PR.
(5) Review the PR: the PR goes through the normal review process. The
reviewer checks if the PR implements the voting result faithfully.
(it is implicit that no one can object to the PR)
We may make the following patch to the procedure:
(2.5): The initiator should make up the choices P1, P2, Q1, Q2 reflecting
people's suggestions, and list them clearly before voting.
(3 modified) Voting: People vote on choices [Do P1], [Do P2], [Do Q1], [Do
Q2], [Do nothing]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/fe7c0db5-1340-440b-b233-4a204db26a0en%40googlegroups.com.
