Re: [tsc-devel] Team Nominations...

Quintus | Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:41:13 UTC

Chris Jacobsen <…9@y…> writes:

> I would like to nominate the following two people for membership to
> the Secret Chronicles team:
> *skarfester - Several art contributions as well as involvement in
> general art discussions
> *kirbyfan64 - Two accepted songs and reasonably involved programming
> contributions for the SFML port

I do think that both of these have made fairly good contributions to the
TSC project. skarfester’s art is of fairly good quality even according
to Bugsbane, so I don’t see any problem with him being added to the team
and thus being able to decide about new contributions by other people on
his own.

kirbyfan has added some nice music to the game, and it is our fault that
there only is such a small number of levels using them. We definitely
need to have more levels with his music. As we currently do not have a
single active musician in the team, he fills a very important gap.

> Per the voting rules at
> https://github.com/Secretchronicles/documents/blob/master/votingrules/votingrules-2015-08-15.pdf
> we must hold a vote for each person above.

While correct, this does not say anything about the modus. It is
perfectly possible to design the voting process in such a way that the
votes for the different issues can be given in a single message. That
is, the announcement would include all three votes at once and then
everybody can vote in a single message on all of these issues. It is
just required that the message makes clear which option of which vote
was voted for (i.e. "I vote yes" as a reply to the 3-issue announcement
would not be a valid vote, because it cannot be connected to one of the
three issues; it would have to be "For issue #1 I vote yes, for issue #2
I vote no, and for issue #3 I vote option 3"). There is no limitation on
how many votes can be held concurrently.

However, I don’t think the above way is the best one possible. In the
effort of making things as efficient as possible, I would instead
suggest to incorporate the votings into the outstanding General
Discussion. The team membership votes can be placed as the first point
on the agenda so that for any further votes those people can participate
in the voting. When we have determined the rest of the GD schedule, I
will make the voting announcement for everything we are going to vote
over in the GD, and it will include the team membership votes. Does this
sound like an acceptable solution?

> The rules state that a two
> thirds majority must be reached out of all existing team members.

Yes.

> If interpreted literally, people who don't find time to vote will be
> interpreted as votes against membership

It’s not a voting "against" them. It is simply that the required
absolute majority is not reached. Somebody who doesn’t vote doesn’t mean
to vote "against", so it would be an error to speak of him as being
"against" the issue voted about. This makes no technical difference in
the vote’s outcome, but it is a social difference whether you are
against something or have not attained.

Valete,
Quintus

-- 
#!/sbin/quintus
Blog: http://www.guelkerdev.de

GnuPG key: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F