Charter: Add basic conflict resolution mechanism

[sjn]

We need a basic and agreed-upon way to make decisions and resolve conflicts as a group.

Suggestion: majority vote among github organization members.

[jjatria]

The process of how to decide on a decision-making process is always strange, but until a better one appears, I think majority vote among github organization members is good.

[garu]

How about we start with that and tweak it as issues occur? That's my vote.

[sjn]

I think we should at minimum cover the basics:

1. How to change the charter itself, e.g.
   1. "In-quorum simple majority (50%) vote (excluding abstentions or blank votes) in one video or physical meeting, followed by a likewise vote among github org members within two weeks afterwards", where at least 5 github org members must be present to achieve quorum."
   2. "The previous point may not be changed unless there is a full (2/3) majority vote (including abstentions and blank votes) followed by a likewise vote among github org members within two weeks afterwards", where at least 5 github org members must be present to achieve quorum."
2. How to decide other matters, e.g.
   1. Simple majority among participants, with a quorum of 3.

[garu]

1.i needs a minimamente quórum of 3 as well.
2.i needs a more explicit definition of participants

[sjn]

1.i needs a minimamente quórum of 3 as well.

So you think 5 are too many?

My thoughts are that the charter isn't supposed to be easy to change once we decide on it.

What's your thoughts behind reducing it to 3?

2.i needs a more explicit definition of participants

proposal: "Simple majority among the attending meeting participants"

[garu]

1.i needs a minimamente quórum of 3 as well.
So you think 5 are too many?

Sorry, I completely missed the 5 minimum, I am very much ok with it for the same reasons you specified. My suggestion then is that we use the same wording, either changing 1.i or 2.i.. I would also change it to a relative number, e.g. 4/5ths in 1.i and 2/3rds on 2.i, mostly because we cannot predict the size of the group in X many years, so if for whatever reason the group gets, say, 10 members, then 3 (or even 5) would be too few.

2.i needs a more explicit definition of participants

proposal: "Simple majority among the attending meeting participants"

Not to nitpick, but I think I rather we tied "meeting participants" to actual members of the org, since we allow guests participants.

[Tux]

As the Governance project was closed, should this issue be closed or assigned a new project?