Permalink
Browse files

Introduce GOVERNANCE document and empty RESOLUTIONS file.

To understand the process that lead to this commit, you'll probably need
to read all of:

http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/date.html
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-November/date.html
http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-December/date.html

Any attempt on my part to summarise it would likely seem insufficiently
accurate to me and biased to at least some readers, so I'm not even going
to pretend to try. If you're trying to achieve a tl;dr, I suggest checking
the December archive in the hopes that somebody posts a summary there some
time after I push this commit.
  • Loading branch information...
1 parent dc7d899 commit d8cf3aa31fb3d6ff7813f021fcc002663725fc41 @shadowcat-mst shadowcat-mst committed Dec 8, 2016
Showing with 125 additions and 0 deletions.
  1. +125 −0 GOVERNANCE
  2. 0 RESOLUTIONS
View
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+DBIx::Class Core Team and Voting System
+
+Non normative section:
+
+DBIx::Class originally operated under a BDFL system, but one where it was
+expected that an informal core team would be maintained, and that where
+consensus could not be pre-assumed, the core team and/or the user base
+would be consulted publically such that measured decisions could be made.
+
+This document is intended to formalise a form of this system, while still
+providing room for the system to adapt later as required.
+
+It is intended that this system provides confidence to the user base that
+decisions will be made in the open and that their wishes will be taken into
+account.
+
+It is also intended that this system allows business as usual to happen
+without unnecessary red tape.
+
+It is not intended that this system becomes the primary decision making
+process in and of itself; instead, it is intended that this system is used
+to ratify consensus as formed by discussion, and only sparingly as a tie
+breaking system when consensus cannot be reached.
+
+Normative section:
+
+Terms: VM - Voting Member - part of the benevolent dictatorship
+ LS - List Subscriber - a subscriber to the mailing list
+ LAV - List Aggregate Vote - the aggregate vote of the non-VM LSes
+
+Voting Members are:
+
+ Matt S Trout (mst) cpan:MSTROUT
+ Dagfinn Ilmari Mansaker (ilmari) cpan:ILMARI
+ Frew Schmidt (frew) cpan:FREW
+ Jess Robinson (castaway) cpan:JROBINSON
+
+PAUSE release perms are to be held by:
+
+ Matt S Trout (mst) cpan:MSTROUT
+ Dagfinn Ilmari Mansaker (ilmari) cpan:ILMARI
+ Frew Schmidt (frew) cpan:FREW
+ Jess Robinson (castaway) cpan:JROBINSON
+
+First come permissions are to be held by FREW.
+
+(the above two lists may or may not be identical at any given time)
+
+A resolution must be proposed and then successfully voted upon to:
+
+ - Make a PAUSE-indexed (i.e. non-dev) release of DBIx::Class
+ - Make changes to the master and blead branches of the repository
+ - Amend this document
+
+This document is currently in bootstrap phase, and as such no merges will be
+made to master or blead until this sentence is removed.
+
+A resolution that amends the 'PAUSE release perms' list is to be assumed to
+also intend the permission within PAUSE itself to be updated accordingly.
+
+Adding or removing entries from the list of situations requiring resolutions
+is absolutely a valid topic for resolutions.
+
+A resolution may be proposed for reasons including, but not limited to:
+
+ - Force/revert/block a branch merge
+ - Add/remove a commit bit
+ - Resolve a design discussion
+ - Anything you like, under the assumption frivolous proposals will be
+ voted down naturally anyway
+
+Merges to topic branches and similar actions that do not have a resolution
+attached may be made at the discretion of those with ability to do so, but
+a developer unsure if the merge will be uncontroversial is expected to ping
+the list first so a vote can be called if people believe it to be required.
+
+Rules that restrict this "ask unless you're sure" trust-by-default position
+are also absolutely a valid topic for resolutions.
+
+Resolution proposal:
+
+A resolution is proposed by starting a new thread entitled 'PROPOSAL: ...'
+
+A resolution must be seconded before it is voted upon.
+
+If a VM makes or seconds a proposal, they are required to abstain from
+voting upon it.
+
+If a non-VM LS makes or seconds a proposal, no such restriction applies.
+
+Resolution voting:
+
+Once a proposal is seconded, the initial proposer may start a new thread
+entitled 'VOTE: ...' (voting does not automatically begin after seconding
+in case other feedback leads the proposer to wish to alter and re-present
+their proposal).
+
+Each VM may cast one vote, either +1, -1 or abstain.
+
+Each non-VM LS may post +1 or -1, and the aggregate of those form the LAV.
+
+Voting closes after 72h from when the proposal was first posted.
+
+A resolution passes if the VM total is at least +1 and the LAV is
+non-negative, to avoid requiring the list members to expend time to vote on
+business as usual while still providing them a veto.
+
+Resolution forcing:
+
+If a resolution gains a positive LAV, but is voted down by the VMs, a force
+vote may be proposed. This requires two list members who did not propose or
+second the initial resolution to propose and second the force vote.
+
+A force vote also lasts 72h, and is LAV-only. If it receives at least 25%
+more +1s than -1s, the resolution passes no matter the VM vote.
+
+This mechanism is not intended to be needed on a regular basis, but exists
+to permit the list to forcibly recall a VM if they believe it to be necessary.
+
+Once a resolution has passed, the resolution will be carried out by those with
+the power to do so. It will not be reverted without a new resolution
+amending or reversing the decision of the previous once.
+
+Passed resolutions will be recorded in a RESOLUTIONS file maintained next
+to this document.
View
No changes.

0 comments on commit d8cf3aa

Please sign in to comment.