Re: Planning releases

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

George <jirka@5z.com> writes: 
> Even if the board has power to make this decision, it first needs a
> consensus by the maintainers of the different packages.  The release plans
> are really in the hands of the maintainers.
> 
> However perhaps having such a power is good.  Then the board has to either
> derive it's decision from the maintainers, OR the board has to convince the
> maintainers that it's decision is ok.  Even if it has power to make arbitrary
> decisions about release dates, it has no way to truly enforce and implement
> such arbitrary release dates.  But making this official board decision will
> ensure that all major parties are well aware of the release plans (something
> which was not exactly happening in the past).  So it's still consensus
> driven, and most likely the decision process will be the same with the
> difference that in the end the board "approves" the release plans.
> 

Good point, I have no doubt that it will end up working this way in
practice no matter what we actually write down in the bylaws.

Perhaps we could say: "The board will be responsible for writing down
and publicizing a proposed release plan, including schedules, content
of the release, and parties responsible for managing the release. The
board should create this plan by attempting to build a consensus among
the membership, especially the maintainers of the core projects. The
board will oversee the plan, and keep it up-to-date in the event of
delays or changing circumstances."

Or something, that's awfully vague. What happens if there's no consensus?
(Is it even possible to release if there's not? I'm not sure it is,
without forking some projects.)

As a check, we could say that if X number of members request a
referendum on the proposal, then there's a vote; if a majority are not
in favor of the proposal, it becomes "rejected" and goes back to the
drawing board. I suppose we could have this check on all board
actions, not just release plans. Alternatively we could say that all
major actions have to be approved by a vote (i.e. they are rejected by
default, instead of accepted by default).

I'm rambling I guess. But I like the idea that the board creates
"recommendations" or "proposals". I think we should call them that
instead of "decisions," just to keep everyone in the right spirit of
consensus-building.

Havoc