-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 163
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Document CoC Member selection #1373
Conversation
closes #1297 Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This LGTM with or without my suggestion (which essentially reorders sentences and avoids duplication).
The diff of diff makes my suggestions look weird. He's what I had in mind:
Candidates can self-nominate to be selected as an alternate community member, a primary member, or both.
Once the nomination period has ended, primary and alternate members will be selected based on consensus. If there is an objection to a nomination and consensus cannot be reached then a vote will occur for that nomination. Our policy on consensus and voting is outlined in our Charter.
After further offline discussion with @joesepi, I'd go with something along the lines of:
My rationale is that the risk of lack of consensus for attributing primary or alternate roles to candidates once objections are managed is pretty much zero (and that the voting process continues to apply regardless anyway, as it does for everything the CPC does.) |
Co-authored-by: Tobie Langel <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tobie Langel <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joe Sepi <[email protected]>
Shouldn't we also repurpose the forms and process that @bensternthal uses for the other elections here? (I think we discussed preserving candidate's privacy during the first part of the selection process, but I'm not sure where we landed with this.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm
closes #1297