[haiku-development] Re: Formalize voting rules

  • From: Adrien Destugues <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 08:57:08 +0100

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 08:03:46PM -0500, waddlesplash wrote:

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
<js-haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1.) Haiku is a democratic project, where all decisions are made by the
developers.
2.) Developers is defined as all persons having commit access to the main
Haiku repository. Active developers is defined as all persons having used
their commit access within the last 365 days.
3.) Only a developer can start a vote.
4.) Each developer has exactly 1 vote on each topic to be voted on.
5.) In order to reach a decision, at least 51% of the active developers
need to cast their vote. Should this quorum not be reached within 1 month,
no decision is reached. After another month, the topic can be proposed
again and voted on again.
6.) In case of a tie, no decision is reached. The same procedure as in 5.)
applies.

What about abstentions? In the past, some votes for commit access have
been 100% +1s, but no clear record of who did/didn't vote.

"at least 51% of the developers need to cast their vote"


Also, 51% sounds a bit low to me. If there's something that
controversial, we probably should step back and discuss it more. Maybe
70% would be a better choice?


We use this voting process only for controversial choices. The preferred
way, at least for technical decisions, is to discuss things and reach an
agreement.

These rules do not define how the votes are counted and how much
agreement they need to be. In the past, we used relative majority for
yes/no questions, and condorcet voting when there are multiple choices
(eg. picking students for the Haiku Code Drive, or deciding which VCS to
use when we switched from SVN).

For technical decision, the one who writes the code makes the final call
anyway (so no, Haiku isn't a democracy, sorry!). No one wants to be
forced to use this or that solution by a vote, so it would be a risk
that there is a vote, hen no one from the "winning" side wants to
actually work on the chosen solution.

-waddlesplash


Other related posts: