doc: add information about CTC quorum rules #7813
Conversation
Trott
added
doc
| better educate themselves about relevant issues. A vote is not valid unless | ||
| there is participation of a quorum of the CTC. A CTC quorum is more than half of | ||
| the CTC. Absentee votes may be cast in advance by commenting on the weekly CTC | ||
| agenda issue on GitHub. Explicit abtentions from voting constitute |
|
@nodejs/ctc |
|
This matches my understanding. LGTM. |
|
I find the distinction between a vote to schedule a vote and an actual vote on a specific issue unclear and confusing. I think I understood the differences after reading @Trott's comment, but I'm not 100% sure. If indeed there are two different set of rules for votes to schedule a vote and actual votes, would it help to separate the rules for each of them in different sections of the document? |
I agree. I'd like those rules to be basically the same, for simplicity and clarity. But that would mean changing the existing rules. EDIT: Or it could mean forgetting the whole quorum thing altogether and saying that nothing is a ratified decision without a simple majority of all CTC members. That would certainly add gravity to the need to keep folks active, as it means every inactive member means decisions are harder to make. |
That's a good idea. If we need to have two separate sets of rules, being really explicit about where one set ends and the next begins is probably helpful. |
|
LGTM |
|
Sorry, but this doesn't look like an improvement to me. In the current form, it rasies more questions (see comments above by @addaleax and @Fishrock123 ). The key question is: if there is no consensus and a final vote is being cast, where:
what would the result of the vote be? The same question for a (more common) case when there is a consensus (i.e. I'm not proposing to include the code or formulae into the Readme, but it could help us better understand how things should look like here, and express that in common English after that. |
|
@ChALkeR For a motion to close discussion on a contentious issue and schedule a vote, there would need to be more than half of For the actual vote on the contentious issue:
The decision is whichever is the greater of |
|
@Trott Thanks. I don't think this could be justified, sorry. For example, if The algorithm you described is in no way better than requiring that Do we still want that? For starters, I would propose to subtract 1 from the effective CTC size for each person abstained, not 2 — else abstaining means being in favor of the resolution. It requires auto-filling as above (aka limiting the number of persons voted in favor of the resolution, not the quorum), else this would make abstaining being more negative that negative votes in some cases. As the second point, I doubt that 25% should be the minimum requirement. |
|
So,
Combining all of the above: «to get a resolution, more than 50% of the CTC size excluding the number of abstained members should be in favor of the resolution». How is that? |
|
@ChALkeR wrote:
That works for me. |
|
This probably should be at least mentioned on the CTC meeting again. |
|
@Trott Is some of the feedback that was given in this PR ready to be integrated? That might help move the discussion forward, especially if this issue comes up in the next CTC meeting. |
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation.
|
@misterdjules Updated! |
|
LGTM |
|
Some of the concepts could be further clarified, like how one would "indicate that they abstain", but it looks like it's already an improvement. So LGTM, and we can always incrementally clarify this further with future PRs. |
|
Per the CTC meeting, I'm going to land this at this time. (We can always change it again if someone swoops in now with an objection.) |
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: nodejs#7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
|
Landed in 96611d0 |
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: #7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: #7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: #7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: #7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid differences in interpretation. PR-URL: #7813 Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Julien Gilli <[email protected]>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
doc meta
Description of change
CTC quorum rules were not in writing. There was an informal
understanding between CTC members. Document the rules to avoid
differences in interpretation.