TSC membership changes: clarify details#4
Conversation
Details on member resignations Details on nominations and voting for new members Signed-off-by: Gregory Becker <becker33@llnl.gov>
tldahlgren
left a comment
tldahlgren
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggesting more concise wording and requesting clarification of the private notification mechanism.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Becker <becker33@llnl.gov>
| ranked-choice voting. In the case of ranked-choice voting is used, a | ||
| majority on the final round of ranked-choice tallying constitutes a | ||
| majority of the TSC and admits the nominee to the committee. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still seems awkward.
Perhaps something along the lines:
| ranked-choice voting. In the case of ranked-choice voting is used, a | |
| majority on the final round of ranked-choice tallying constitutes a | |
| majority of the TSC and admits the nominee to the committee. | |
| ranked-choice voting. In the case of ranked-choice voting, a | |
| majority on the final tally round constitutes a majority of the | |
| TSC and admits the nominee to the committee. |
| made at a TSC meeting or privately (e.g. by email or the private TSC | ||
| slack channel) to the TSC in advance of discussion at a TSC | ||
| meeting. If the nomination is made between meetings, there must be a | ||
| TSC meeting between the first nomination and the TSC meeting at which | ||
| a vote will be taken. If additional nominees are put forward between |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: Still seems awkward IMO but better than before.
Co-authored-by: Tamara Dahlgren <35777542+tldahlgren@users.noreply.github.com>
Will defer further feedback to other TSC members.
adamjstewart
left a comment
adamjstewart
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What this is really missing is a PR description that answers the question "why?"
| technical direction to the project. The TSC will vote on any matters | ||
| on which the community is unable to reach consensus. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Membership |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would actually reverse the order of this section:
- Adding new members
- Removing resigning or absent members
- Voting rules for both
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively:
- Adding members (and voting rules)
- Removing members (and voting rules)
| meeting. If the nomination is made between meetings, there must be a | ||
| TSC meeting between the first nomination and the TSC meeting at which | ||
| a vote will be taken. If additional nominees are put forward between |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oddly specific and also not sure if this is really necessary. As long as we have at least one meeting to discuss and vote, why do we need two full meetings?
| If multiple nominees are under consideration at any given meeting, the | ||
| TSC may decide whether to vote independently on the nominees or via | ||
| ranked-choice voting. In the case of ranked-choice voting is used, a | ||
| majority on the final round of ranked-choice tallying constitutes a | ||
| majority of the TSC and admits the nominee to the committee. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, extremely detailed, and I don't understand the motivation. The previous text made it clear that it was a majority vote. Why do we need to explicitly document all of these different voting options? What number of votes decide which type of vote to carry out? And more importantly, what is the motivation for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The motivation is to ensure that regardless of the number of nominees, the easy case is keeping the same size and the expanding the size of the TSC requires conscious choice. Otherwise it will be easy to nominate multiple people for a vacancy and result in an ever-expanding TSC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But nominations don't have to be tied to a resignation. If we (as a whole) want to avoid continuous expansion, we should vote more sparingly for all nominations, regardless of if there is 1 or many.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Becker <gbbmiler@gmail.com>
| In order to avoid an incentive to constantly expand the size of the | ||
| TSC, when considering multiple nominations the TSC will first vote on | ||
| the number of members to add. Voting on the nominees will be by | ||
| ranked-choice voting, and any nominee not listed on a majority of | ||
| ballots does not satisfy the majority-vote criteria, regardless of | ||
| their rank in the voting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First two paragraphs make sense and are definitely okay (could rearrange for clarity).
Last paragraph still feels unnecessarily detailed. Perhaps it's designed to avoid a situation that has never occurred before and I just don't realize this is something we need to be afraid of.
3 participants
Details on member resignations
Details on nominations and voting for new members
@spack/tsc as discussed in our meeting earlier today, I've made this language more general.