 |
 |
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