Ubuntu Contributing Developer Application : Marc Cluet

[Dave Walker]

On 21/06/11 09:32, Iain Lane wrote:
<SNIP>
> Clarifying. I meant +1 after all of the votes are totalled (i.e. 4 +1 votes
> is definitely enough to pass an application).
>
<SNIP>

Hi Iain,

Was this an agreed policy, and importantly is this documented anywhere?

So to clarify a scenario:
7 members voting:
4 x +1
3 x -1
== Approved.

6 members voting:
3 x +1
2 x +0
1 x -1
== Not-Approved, even though the majority +1'd (assuming that abstention
is considered a non-vote).  Meaning that 75% of the 4 people that voted
supported the case, and one member was able to veto it.  Or, should it
mean that the last member who was unable to attend is then asked to vote
post-meeting?

Does this essentially mean +0 == -1, other than how it may be
interpreted pragmatically?  Or, this raises the question that quorum
criteria needs to better clarified, as abstention during a vote largely
break it; not just at meeting start point.

5 members voting (as was last night):
3 x  +1
1 x +0
1 x -1
== Postponed to post-meeting vote.. due to quorum not being met? (if +4
overall is required that might indicate that 4 definitive votes is
quorum, here we had 4 votes.  This would seem to be a case where the
overall result is less than the required +4 - with one member vetoing.)

To clarify, +4 votes is the required standard; and i'm implying that 4
members satisfies quorum.  Does this mean that unless all members vote
+1, then second-innings is allowed via post meeting vote? 

Equally, a situation (whilst unlikely!) where 4 members are present:
1 x -1
3 x -1
== Post-meeting vote, as it is still possible for the candidate to
achieve an overall +4.

It's worth noting that when a similar situation happend in 2010, a board
member stated - "unfortunately, we never established a sufficiently
precise set of rules; we ought to, but in the meantime there appear to
be varying interpretations among the voting body"

This needs to be fixed. :)

Thanks.

Kind Regards,
Dave Walker