I have looked at the successful Debian project for inspiration on how to make decisions in a large distributed project like ReactOS. I have drafted a constitution for the ReactOS project which is similar to the Debian project constitution. You may find it here: http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution.
The constitution explains the decision making entities, their abilities and the decision making processes of the ReactOS project.
Feel free to comment, suggest changes, etc.
Casper
I like it...
-Brian
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Casper Hornstrup Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:32 PM To: 'ReactOS Development List' Subject: [ros-dev] Constitution
I have looked at the successful Debian project for inspiration on how to make decisions in a large distributed project like ReactOS. I have drafted a constitution for the ReactOS project which is similar to the Debian project constitution. You may find it here: http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution.
The constitution explains the decision making entities, their abilities and the decision making processes of the ReactOS project.
Feel free to comment, suggest changes, etc.
Casper
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
From: Casper Hornstrup
I have looked at the successful Debian project for inspiration on how to make decisions in a large distributed project like ReactOS. I have drafted a constitution for the ReactOS project which is similar to the Debian project constitution. You may find it here: http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution.
The constitution explains the decision making entities, their abilities and the decision making processes of the ReactOS project.
Feel free to comment, suggest changes, etc.
Looks good. A few comments:
The Registered Project Members can (by General Resolution) override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or the Area Coordinators. However, the Repository Coordinator and Project Secretary can make decisions "preferably consistent with the consensus of the Project Members". It seems to me that Registered Project Members should be able to override their decisions too.
There is a mandatory 1 week discussion period and 1 week voting period for each vote, with no escape clause. For some votes (whether to release or not comes to mind) 2 weeks seems a bit long. Can we change it so that the proposer can ask for shorter periods, with a safeguard that the shorter periods will be denied if a single Registered Project Member objects?
I really would like Coordinator Elections to be secret (or private, not sure what the correct English term is). I should be able to cast my vote without the candidates knowing on who (or even if) I voted. I believe this should be explicitly mentioned in the Coordinator Elections voting procedure.
Ge van Geldorp.
I think we should consider term limits to the coordinator positions.
I can think of two ways to do it:
1) no one can hold a single coordinator position for more than 2 years. After which he/she must take at least a one year break from *that* position before he/she can run again.
2) no one can hold any coordinator position for more than 2 years. After which he/she must take a break from coordinating all-together before he/she can run for a coordinator position.
Personally, I think #1 would be sufficient, but thought I'd present #2 for completeness sake.
I wouldn't mind coordinator term limits. But I think that as long as the coordinators are elected then there should be no mandatory "break". If they get re-elected it's probably because they did a good job and deserve to be re-elected.
-Brian
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Royce Mitchell III Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:09 PM To: ReactOS Development List Subject: [ros-dev] Coordinator Term Limits
I think we should consider term limits to the coordinator positions.
I can think of two ways to do it:
1) no one can hold a single coordinator position for more than 2 years. After which he/she must take at least a one year break from *that* position before he/she can run again.
2) no one can hold any coordinator position for more than 2 years. After which he/she must take a break from coordinating all-together before he/she can run for a coordinator position.
Personally, I think #1 would be sufficient, but thought I'd present #2 for completeness sake.
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I agree that there should be no mandatory "break". What if someone really good at a job couldn't be elected due to this rule and none else would want it or there was only persons left which were really bad at the job?
As the project grows there will be more coordinators. We could end up in election hell. IMO, giving any Registered Project Member the right to call for an election at any time, should be enough.
Casper
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Brian Palmer Sent: 17. oktober 2005 07:18 To: 'ReactOS Development List' Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Coordinator Term Limits
I wouldn't mind coordinator term limits. But I think that as long as the coordinators are elected then there should be no mandatory "break". If they get re-elected it's probably because they did a good job and deserve to be re-elected.
-Brian
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Royce Mitchell III Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:09 PM To: ReactOS Development List Subject: [ros-dev] Coordinator Term Limits
I think we should consider term limits to the coordinator positions.
I can think of two ways to do it:
- no one can hold a single coordinator position for more than 2 years.
After which he/she must take at least a one year break from *that* position before he/she can run again.
- no one can hold any coordinator position for more than 2 years. After
which he/she must take a break from coordinating all-together before he/she can run for a coordinator position.
Personally, I think #1 would be sufficient, but thought I'd present #2 for completeness sake.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Ge van Geldorp Sent: 16. oktober 2005 23:56 To: 'ReactOS Development List' Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Constitution
Looks good. A few comments:
The Registered Project Members can (by General Resolution) override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or the Area Coordinators. However, the Repository Coordinator and Project Secretary can make decisions "preferably consistent with the consensus of the Project Members". It seems to me that Registered Project Members should be able to override their decisions too.
[CSH] Right. How about changing: * Override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator. * Appoint or dismiss the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.
to * Override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any Coordinator. * Appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
There is a mandatory 1 week discussion period and 1 week voting period for each vote, with no escape clause. For some votes (whether to release or not comes to mind) 2 weeks seems a bit long. Can we change it so that the proposer can ask for shorter periods, with a safeguard that the shorter periods will be denied if a single Registered Project Member objects?
[CSH] I thought of having a "quick vote" for decisions which are needed here and now (like whether or not to release now) and not necessarily need to be documented anywhere else than the mailing lists for future reference, but how would you define the two? Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote to choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least 2? days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has the right to demand a revote at any time (maybe there should be some protection from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she wants).
I really would like Coordinator Elections to be secret (or private, not sure what the correct English term is). I should be able to cast my vote without the candidates knowing on who (or even if) I voted. I believe this should be explicitly mentioned in the Coordinator Elections voting procedure.
Ge van Geldorp.
[CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go either way. If it's secret then you put a lot of power into one person, the person that collects the votes (most likely the Project Secretary). What procedure would you suggest?
Casper
From: Casper Hornstrup
[CSH] Right. How about changing:
- Override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or
Area Coordinator.
- Appoint or dismiss the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.
to
- Override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any
Coordinator.
- Appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
Yes, sounds fine to me.
[CSH] I thought of having a "quick vote" for decisions which are needed here and now (like whether or not to release now) and not necessarily need to be documented anywhere else than the mailing lists for future reference, but how would you define the two? Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote to choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least 2? days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has the right to demand a revote at any time
I don't think it's necessary to define a "quick" and a "full" vote in the constitution. In practice, I expect little confusion about this, it is usually obvious. And like you said, it can always be "fixed" by a revote. I think the 7 day periods should be mentioned, like they are now, to emphasize that they are the preferred periods. Add a clause which states that the Registered Project Member calling the vote can specify different periods in his call for vote.
(maybe there should be some protection from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she wants).
Looks like an extreme case to me, so extreme measures are warranted too: there's the option of unregistering the project member.
[CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go either way. If it's secret then you put a lot of power into one person, the person that collects the votes (most likely the Project Secretary). What procedure would you suggest?
No, we haven't done this before, and I didn't like it... How about the Project Secretary nominates a neutral vote counter (can be anyone, Registered or Unregistered, including the Project Secretary himself) which all the candidates have to affirm? Can be done in private emails between Project Secretary and candidates. That should ensure the neutrality.
Ge van Geldorp.
Perhaps we should vote on the website rather than on the mailinglist? The mailinglist could be used for the discussion about what exactly the vote will be and to make the vote public with a link (most people don't look at the website but at the mailinglist). With the new login system it would be no problem to control that only committers can vote. This way we would have a clean overlook what decisions were taken and what was decided exactly.
If there is an interest in this I would implement it into the website.
Greetings Michael
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Ge van Geldorp Sent: 16. oktober 2005 23:56 To: 'ReactOS Development List' Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Constitution
Looks good. A few comments:
The Registered Project Members can (by General Resolution) override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or the Area Coordinators. However, the Repository Coordinator and Project Secretary can make decisions "preferably consistent with the consensus of the Project Members". It seems to me that Registered Project Members should be able to override their decisions too.
[CSH] Right. How about changing:
- Override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.
- Appoint or dismiss the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.
to
- Override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
- Appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
There is a mandatory 1 week discussion period and 1 week voting period for each vote, with no escape clause. For some votes (whether to release or not comes to mind) 2 weeks seems a bit long. Can we change it so that the proposer can ask for shorter periods, with a safeguard that the shorter periods will be denied if a single Registered Project Member objects?
[CSH] I thought of having a "quick vote" for decisions which are needed here and now (like whether or not to release now) and not necessarily need to be documented anywhere else than the mailing lists for future reference, but how would you define the two? Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote to choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least 2? days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has the right to demand a revote at any time (maybe there should be some protection from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she wants).
I really would like Coordinator Elections to be secret (or private, not sure what the correct English term is). I should be able to cast my vote without the candidates knowing on who (or even if) I voted. I believe this should be explicitly mentioned in the Coordinator Elections voting procedure.
Ge van Geldorp.
[CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go either way. If it's secret then you put a lot of power into one person, the person that collects the votes (most likely the Project Secretary). What procedure would you suggest?
Casper
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Freworld wrote:
Perhaps we should vote on the website rather than on the mailinglist? The mailinglist could be used for the discussion about what exactly the vote will be and to make the vote public with a link (most people don't look at the website but at the mailinglist). With the new login system it would be no problem to control that only committers can vote. This way we would have a clean overlook what decisions were taken and what was decided exactly.
If there is an interest in this I would implement it into the website.
I like the idea, and was actually thinking of suggesting it, myself. Also, some have expressed an interest in private voting for coordinator elections, which would be easier with web-based voting.
Hello,
I've been following the project for some time.
It seems like a lot of the discussion going on lately has been about large commits.
Why not write into the constitution that commits over a certain size or complexity should be commit to a branch for open discussion, testing and comment before commit to the main branch ?
That way nobody can be surpriced over a major rewrite or the like.
Just an idea, Preben
I've added the feedback.
* The Registered Project Members may override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any Coordinator. * The Registered Project Members may appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator. * Optional discussion period. * 2 to 21 days voting period. * Secret voting at elections.
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution
Casper
I've changed it to conform to the new voting method. Are there any more comments before we vote on it?
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution
Casper
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
I've changed it to conform to the new voting method. Are there any more comments before we vote on it?
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution
Casper
You ( I think ) and a couple others have listed more details and/or requirements for the Project Coordinator position. Should these extra things be added now, or do we want to get the basic constitution in before discussing more details?
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Royce Mitchell III Sent: 24. oktober 2005 19:51 To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Constitution
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
I've changed it to conform to the new voting method. Are there any more comments before we vote on it?
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/Constitution
Casper
You ( I think ) and a couple others have listed more details and/or requirements for the Project Coordinator position. Should these extra things be added now, or do we want to get the basic constitution in before discussing more details?
I believe you refer to more specific responsibilities that will change more often than something as basic as project member rights and decision making processes. We should put those in a coordinator description for each coordinator position in wiki so there is no doubt about what the job entitles.
Casper
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote to choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least 2? days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has the right to demand a revote at any time (maybe there should be some protection from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she wants).
I would also suggest some sort of limitation to amount of times a revote on any one certain thing could be called? Like, if a certain question is called 3 times in a row within a month and a half of each other, that question is banned from recurring for at least a few months or a year unless some supermajority requests it be called again.
-uQ
-
Brian Palmer -
Casper Hornstrup -
Freworld -
Ge van Geldorp -
K McI -
Preben Christensen -
Royce Mitchell III