oVirt comminuty voting

[Itamar Heim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: project-planning-bounces at ovirt.org
[mailto:project-planning-bounces at ovirt.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Liguori
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 23:39 PM
> To: cctrieloff at redhat.com
> Cc: project-planning at ovirt.org
> Subject: Re: oVirt comminuty voting
> 
> On 09/09/2011 03:03 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> > On 09/09/2011 04:00 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd prefer something like, communities with greater than 3 (or maybe
> >> 10?) maintainers can creator their own voting procedures.
> >
> > that is what apache does btw and is fine by me. the goal here is to
get
> > a broad maintainer set and help mew projects grow. once a project has
a
> > good culture, they can evolve it themselves.
> 
> Okay, that sounds good.  Perhaps we should try to work language like
> this into more of these docs?  Basically, three tiers of projects:
> 
>   Tier 0;  x < 3 maintainers, oVirt board has ability to make decisions
> on behalf of the project.
> 
>   Tier 1;  3 <= x < 10 maintainers, project is autonomous, but must use
> oVirt recommended voting procedures and maintainership model.
> 
>   Tier 2; x >= 10 maintainers, project is autonomous and writes its own
> governance document.  Perhaps the document should be voted on by the
> oVirt board?
> 
> I think that creates a nice incubator model where oVirt helps a project
> grow and gets out of the way once it reaches critical mass.
> 
> Can anyone give me an idea of where the initial set of seed projects
> will fit?  How many maintainers is oVirt Server likely to have? (I
> assume that's the biggest of the seed projects).

I think the comment on a 'leader' and the need for a tie breaker is valid
for projects with less than 10 maintainers as well.
This is also relevant for overruling a nack to avoid stagnation. A
majority of acks, or leader as tie breaker should be able to vote on
overruling a nack.