= Proposals for Voting/Meetings =

== starcraft.man's ==
Hey guys,

It would appear it's time to talk about our favourite topic, voting again. Incidentally, I'd like it noted that for some reason these discussions always start and go for a while I'm busy and I seem like I always coming on at the end. Not intentional.

I'm with drubin in opposing the outlined proposal. Clearly the need to discuss on the mailing list prior to a vote has been established. I think everyone agrees with that step. I'm not in favour though of this proxy voting thing for meetings (by that, I'm referring to editing votes into Wiki or telling someone else your views/votes). I don't see any reason why this should be effective anymore than it has been now (which is not very much). Having to find/make proxy adds a needless layer to voting where ideally it should be built into system used.

The problem also with proxy voting for IRC meetings is that often the topics on agenda are ill defined (i.e. not specific resolution format where it's yes/no) For example, Topic: Let's discuss starcraft.man's role in team (bad) vs starcraft.man needs to be less verbose (acceptable). Even when they are specific, often the topics to vote are put to sudden changes (say a completely alternative good proposal replaces the one on agenda, proposed during IRC meeting), then how do proxy votes get counted? They don't. This one happens often as I recall.

As I see it, the voting system needs to wholly take care of proxy votes within itself (i.e. people who can't make meeting). I've only heard two mechanisms for this:
A - Moving to votebot voting, where people can log on IRC, see resolutions on agenda, then vote by private message. This requires modification to votebot source that paultag said he'd get on.
B - Move to LP voting, where window for vote is established and people log on, vote and be done. Results then are displayed when window is up for team to see.

Furthermore, I'd like it noted that if the majority of the discussion moves to the mail list as we all seem to agree, the actual having a meeting kinda loses it's oomph. I mean it's nice having a live discussion, but it's not strictly necessary. If everyone remembers to check in to mail often enough (twice a day or so) it's not hard to stay on top of current discussions. Then the voting method kinda just becomes a closure to discussion on ml.

=============================================================================

starcraft.man's Counter Proposal. I will illustrate with a lively example as well.

1 - Discussion Erupts on Mail List - Problem arises that has different solutions, we formulate a mail list post and start a team discussion.

1a Minor issue, resolves self in a few posts, no need for a vote.

2 - Discussion doesn't Resolve/ Make Resolutions - The discussion keeps going (a week or so from posting), there are two or more competing views that aren't compatible (Rocket wants LP voting, I want doodle) both with some support in team and no agreement. A driver of the discussion (I would say the lead of the FG in question/or some deputized person) summarizes the views of each resolution clearly then initiates a voting mechanism.

3 - Voting Mechanism
3a - Launchpad Vote - FG Lead/other responsible party has summarized the views of team makes a poll on LP (important that it's clear and ONLY yes/no). Each poll is clearly named for the idea (starcraft.man's proposal/Rocket's), the options for each poll are yes, no and abstain. Each polls summary includes the explanation of proposal (or if too long links to a wiki page we can designate to hold proposals for voting, like a subpage of current meet page.) We hold vote, it lasts for 2-4 days. When poll closes, results are public for team to see or can be mailed to list tacked on discussion with announcement of the result (i.e. starcraft.man wins!).

3b - Votebot Voting - This vote doesn't occur within meeting rather votebot is used as a kind of instant voting machine. People can log onto IRC at any time (during a vote window to be declared) and the resolutions to be voted on should be posted somewhere publicly (or votebot has a mechanism to pull them). Votes can then be lodged against it via private voting. When vote closes, tally taken, lead announces over mail list on end of discussion the results.

4 - IRC Meeting - Now relegated to a separate function, no longer for discussion or voting. We can use it as a monthly status report meeting, all the leads have to show as well as any team members who fancy. Provides a live meeting to interact and bounce ideas off but NOT vote. Discussion's fine, but anything of substance should be posted promptly after meeting to mail list with a summary of idea and relevant log section. Then it can go through standard Discussion > Vote method.

4b - As to paddy voting, like any other issue it can be relegated to the mail list, it would go through standard process of topics. Mentor could initiate thread when he thinks paddy ready with an introduction and wiki link, paddy can offer further introduction. Discussion ensues with questions, followed by prompt vote on LP. Sounds good to me, though I don't care so much about paddy voting. It can be put to IRC if possible (i.e. mentor/paddy not in TZ conflict).

/End of proposal

As to voting mechanism, I'm currently in favour of LP because it's present today, where votebot needs rewriting for the other choice. It's not perfect,  but it's better than having to bother with proxy voting IMO.

Oh and yes, it adds some overhead (what with making the polls) but I don't think it's too bad. We'd just need to settle on standard times for voting window and discussion window. Volunteers could be found to handle driving discussions/voting poll creation I'm sure. C'est tout. So give me some feedback, it's a long post I know.

== Bodhi's ==

Bodhi Zazen
 to UBT
	
show details Jan 14 (3 days ago)
	
This is the second in a series of topics needing discussion on the ML. It has been discussed elsewhere.

The problem:

Part A : We have grown from a small team able to conduct team business via IRC meetings to a larger team.

Part B : Not all of the concerns of BT members have been voiced to the team and/or discussion of important issues has declined.

Part C : Some decisions have not come to resolution to the satisfaction of some BT members via the current IRC meeting structure.

The suggestion has been made to define a process by which issues can be discussed and implemented.

=========================

Proposed solution :

1. Start the process with a discussion. I think the issues needs to be posted to the ML and discussion can occur on either the ML or in -team.

2. If the issues can not be resolved to the satisfaction of the involved parties either in -team or on the ML they need to be added to the meeting agenda.

I would like to ask that people clearly mark ML discussions as resolved (not needing to be on the BT agenda) or unresolved (and added to the BT meeting agenda).

3. The next step is to discuss the issue at the BT IRC meeting. Ideally , people involved with the issue would be present at the meeting, although use of the ML means discussion can occur without the attendance requirement.

If the issue is resolved in IRC meeting a team vote may not be necessary.

4. Voting procedures.

First, if the issue can be resolved via ML or IRC discussion, there is no need to vote as a team.

If the issue remains unresolved at the monthly meeting, or it is important enough to require a team vote, how should we conduct the vote ?

A - Continue to vote in team meetings, with a bot, and using proxy votes if members can not be present.

B - Web based voting, LP or otherwise.

IMO we need to agree to a general process of discussion (easy part) and then adopt a voting procedure (harder part).