Skip to content
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

📝 Terms and Conditions: clarify communication requirements [due Feb25] #228

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 11, 2025

Conversation

ebullient
Copy link
Member

@ebullient ebullient commented Feb 7, 2025

🗳️ Vote progress

Changes to communication requirements (including definition of abandonment) based on concerns raised in #225.

voting group: @commonhaus/cf-egc
cc: @commonhaus/cf-egc-second

Do one of the following:

  • Approve the PR or react with 👍 (:+1:) if it looks good to you
  • Review with Comments or react with 👀 (:eyes:) if you're "ok" with it (it may not be your favorite)
  • If you think it needs discussion or revision
    • Create a review, add your comments and require changes
    • Use the +- button to make a suggestion (instead of just adding a comment).

@ebullient ebullient requested a review from a team as a code owner February 7, 2025 14:48
@haus-rules-bot haus-rules-bot bot added the notice Notice (review, announcement) label Feb 7, 2025
@ebullient ebullient added the vote/open Vote open label Feb 7, 2025
Copy link

haus-rules-bot bot commented Feb 7, 2025

This vote has been closed by ebullient:

Quorum! Let's go! 🚀


✅ 10 of 15 members of @commonhaus/cf-egc have voted (reaction or review, quorum=2/3).

Reaction Total Team Voting members
approve 10 9 Naros, aalmiray, cealsair, criccomini, evanchooly, gavinking, henri-tremblay, kenfinnigan, tristantarrant
ok 1 1 ebullient

Additional input (🙏 🥰 🙌):
yrodiere(👍)

The following votes were not counted (duplicates):
cealsair(👍), kenfinnigan(👀)

Copy link
Contributor

@gavinking gavinking left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What I said to Erin earlier was that this looks good, and is an improvement, but, that said, I still want to see that the EGC has the power to veto Leadership transitions which are not explicitly okayed by the outgoing project leadership. I suggested some language like:

In case the existing project representatives do not explicitly agree to the transition, the sponsor must seek approval from the EGC

OTOH, Erin has some other ideas about how something like that could work, which also sound interesting.

So, anyway, I'm happy to see this PR merged, but on the understanding that I don't yet consider the wider issue completely resolved. I think it's critical that decisions around leadership transition aren't decisions that can be made arbitrarily by one or two people without one of:

  1. consent of the previous leadership, or
  2. review by some representation of the wider community.

@haus-rules-bot haus-rules-bot bot added the vote/quorum Vote has quorum of electronic responses label Feb 11, 2025
@ebullient
Copy link
Member Author

vote::result Quorum! Let's go! 🚀

@haus-rules-bot haus-rules-bot bot added vote/done Vote closed and removed vote/open Vote open labels Feb 11, 2025
@ebullient ebullient merged commit e30387d into main Feb 11, 2025
2 checks passed
@ebullient ebullient deleted the communication branch February 11, 2025 23:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
notice Notice (review, announcement) vote/done Vote closed vote/quorum Vote has quorum of electronic responses
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants