A non-organization without a defined membership can't have votes on
anything. At best it can have straw polls; the decision falls with the
person or people running the service or activity. They can decide to go
with the straw poll, but it's still their decision.

On 1/24/13 4:37 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>> rather than in the abstract?
>>
> 
> I share your unease.  But deciding to situations in context without a
> set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy.  I'm actually more
> uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way
> to handle it.
> 
> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what
> type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
> 
> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub
> issues and resolve them before we vote.  Whatever issues can't get
> resolved end up in a branch/fork.  In the end, we vote on each of the
> forks, or "no policy at all".
> 
> Does that sound reasonable?
> 


-- 
Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
http://www.garymcgath.com