Mozart governance procedure (continued!)

[Juergen Stuber]

Hi,

Peter Van Roy <pvr at info.ucl.ac.be> writes:
>
> This modification is fine for me.  We don't need to REJECT
> so often, I think.  Another possibility would be to leave out
> REJECT completely, so the Board either ACCEPTs or does
> not.

yes, the simpler the better.  While you are at it, you could also
remove NEEDSWORK, I think the reasons for not accepting a proposal
can be explained informally in the discussion.
I think most of the time a consensus should be built in the
discussion, which is then just ratified by the voting.

As a technical point, better make it > 2/3 for accept,
otherwise zero non-abstain votes would suffice for acceptance.

Finally, I don't like the delegation of voting rights,
and since abstention is not counted against a proposal
this is not needed.


Jürgen

-- 
NO to software patents -- stop the European patents directive

Jürgen Stuber <juergen at jstuber.net>
http://www.jstuber.net/
gnupg key fingerprint = 2767 CA3C 5680 58BA 9A91  23D9 BED6 9A7A AF9E 68B4