Voting

[Casper Hornstrup]

I don't think we've ever formalised our voting procedures.
All I seem to remember about this is that committers can vote.
I've drafted an initial version here:
http://reactos.com/wiki/index.php/Voting
Please comment on that.
 
Casper

[Mike Nordell]

Casper Hornstrup wrote:

>   http://reactos.com/wiki/index.php/Voting 
That seems to be enough to get us an ISO 9001 certification. :-)

I like it, so long as it's used with good judgement and that the issues
voted on are of enough serious kind to warrant a formal voting procedure
(i.e. a simple call for input/opinions shouldn't easily turn into a fomal
voting procedure).

I do however miss some parts. In no particular order:

- Are the votes to have only two alternative (e.g. yes/no), or are more
alternatives allowed?

- I'd like to see the explicit right to vote "none of the above"
formalized.
This would display "I participate in the democratic process, but I
disagree/don't_agree_enough with all/any_of_the presented alternatives".

- If the person calling for the vote (hereafter A) does not collect and
present the results within a specified time (T), is the voting declared
invalid?

- If the voting is declared invalid after T, how large is T? (If not
declared invalid after T, how are people to know the results of the vote?)

- If A exceeds T without presenting the results, is A "punished" in some way
(e.g. not allowed to call for a vote for T2 time, and/or not allowed to vote
for T3 time)?

- If A is to be "punished" for such negliance, depending on the outcome of
the previous question how large is/are T2 and/or T3?


I think the following could be some starting points for discussions:

- Yes/no questions are fitting for children of the age 2-4.
- The right to vote "none of the above" is formalized.
- The voting is declared invalid if A does not present results after T.
- T = 3 days (72 hours). Extension can be allowed, but T shall not exceed 7
days in total. This means a voting procedure, from start to finish
(presented results) should take no more than 10 days, but with extension
allowed it can take as long as 14 days.
- A is punished if failing to meet T.
- T2 = 6 months.
- T3 = 3 months.

If votes other than the yes/no kind are allowed, what system should be used?
Majority of all voters? Majority of votes? 2/3:rds of some kind? Other?


/Mike

[Mike Swanson]

Doesn't this seem to ignore people like me, non-developers, that are
interested in ReactOS?

If the issue is not too technical, such as the language debate,
everyone should be allowed to vote. If only the developers are
listened to, does that seem too Microsoft-ish to you (ignoring the
users)?

[art yerkes]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:13:43 -0800
Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   Doesn't this seem to ignore people like me,
> non-developers, that are
>  interested in ReactOS?
>  
>  If the issue is not too technical, such as the language debate,
>  everyone should be allowed to vote. If only the developers are
>  listened to, does that seem too Microsoft-ish to you (ignoring the
>  users)? 
This debate is about a detail of how we manage the code repository.
It's apprpriate that only those who commit can vote, if such a vote
is needed.
-- 
Here's a simple experiment. Stand on a train track between two locomotives
which are pushing on you with equal force in opposite directions. You will
exhibit no net motion. None the less, you may soon begin to notice that
something important is happening.
-- Robert Stirniman

[Royce Mitchell III]

art yerkes wrote:

> >  Doesn't
> > this seem to ignore people like me, non-developers, that are
> > interested in ReactOS?
> >
> > If the issue is not too technical, such as the language debate,
> > everyone should be allowed to vote. If only the developers are
> > listened to, does that seem too Microsoft-ish to you (ignoring the
> > users)?
> >     
> >  
> This debate is about a detail of how we manage the code repository.
> It's apprpriate that only those who commit can vote, if such a vote
> is needed.
>   
>  
I think Mr. Swanson was commenting about the proposed rules for voting. 
Not all votes will affect only us developers, and issues that will 
affect users should allow their votes.

[K McI]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Royce Mitchell III wrote:
| I think Mr. Swanson was commenting about the proposed rules for voting.
| Not all votes will affect only us developers, and issues that will
| affect users should allow their votes.

I got a bit confused by that too. Thanx and thanx.

~          -uniQ
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFCM5NZ7mze81O92HkRAieEAJ9F+jCWY29NdGbSF6Sj6glD3PMO3wCgqxbI
> AffIliaHNsnBHU6qkVZza5c=
> =1bbG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mike Swanson]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, thanks for clearing it up for me. ;)

--
Mike