| Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP |
From: "andrea ross" <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:54:08 AM
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP
Hi Everyone,
The Science TLP document is here.
Baring any objections articulated on the list or to me in private by tomorrow morning (EDT), I'll send out an email to all Science WG members to ask them to support (+1) abstain (0) or vote against (-1) accepting this Science Top Level Project Charter.
Members will have 10 days maximum to vote.
Once the results are in, I'll report on them to the Steering Committee & group as I proposed.
Kind regards,
Andrea
On 29/06/16 11:19, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
Thanks Andrea,
Yes, I’d go for option B too. Simple majority decides. And we need to publish the amended TLP proposal somewhere. I cannot seem to find it.
Best regards,Torkild
29. jun. 2016 kl. 16.16 skrev Andrea Ross <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hey Torkild,
Here's a few options.
Option A: The Foundation does have infrastructure for this but it's a bit heavyweight for this, in my opinion.
Option B: I'd be happy to run the vote on behalf of the group. What I'll likely do is just email all the member representatives and ask them to please reply with their vote, and then I'll report on the outcome. For transparency's sake, I can share the who voted what with the Steering Committee.
Option C: If we wanted a completely public vote, we'd simply ask for +1/0/-1 here on the list.
I recommend Option B, for what that's worth.
Andrea
On 28/06/16 16:53, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
Hi all,
If we’re going to make all 15 members vote I think we should make the voting process a bit more formal and also make some effort to ensure that members with voting rights are aware of what is going on. I think several representatives could be on vacation already. It starts early, in northern Europe at least. Andrea, do the Foundation offer any infrastructure we can use for this purpose?
Best regards,Torkild
28. jun. 2016 kl. 21.08 skrev Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>:
Or, as Greg says, we can just say "Go!" and wait 10 days. That works too.Jay
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrea,In general I would agree with you, but having the steering committee get the sole deciding votes on something as important our own TLP seems unfair. I mean, honestly, I think everyone will vote "Yes," but I think everyone would like the chance to say they voted on "our TLP" just like they voted on "our charter." Just seems more fair to me, that's all.
Greg, I think institutional votes for participating and steering committee members will be fine. It would be one vote per organization in that case.
If there are no objections I say that we start the vote by roll call?
Jay
--
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Andrea Ross <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay,
For what it's worth, this is what the Steering Committee is meant for.
Kind regards,
Andrea
On 28/06/16 11:50, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
Everyone,
What's the best way to hold the vote on our amended TLP that Mike presented? Furthermore, who will be eligible to vote?
Jay
_______________________________________________ science-iwg mailing list science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
Jay Jay Billings
Oak Ridge National LaboratoryTwitter Handle: @jayjaybillings
--
Jay Jay Billings
Oak Ridge National LaboratoryTwitter Handle: @jayjaybillings
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg