-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
Conversation
This vote has been closed by ebullient:
✅ 10 of 15 members of @commonhaus/cf-egc have voted (reaction or review, quorum=2/3).
Additional input (🙏 🥰 🙌): The following votes were not counted (duplicates): |
d3e9fe8
to
f3afaac
Compare
f3afaac
to
9723978
Compare
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.
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:
- consent of the previous leadership, or
- review by some representation of the wider community.
vote::result Quorum! Let's go! 🚀 |
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: