Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Fernando Frediani]

On 28/10/2020 13:09, Sam Kuper wrote:
> <clip>
> I also propose a different criterion for forcing retirement of
> Decisionmakers.  I think it should be different because:
>
> - Decisionmakers with long-term dedication to OpenWrt might occasionally
>    experience life events that legitimately keep them away from OpenWrt
>    for >3 months (unexpected bereavements, serious illness, etc.).  It
>    seems healthiest (for OpenWrt *and* for the Decisionmaker) if
>    Decisionmakers are not under strong pressure to vote during such
>    periods, but can instead resume voting when recovered & clear-headed.

Why not if it happens, they don't show up for 3 months and losses its 
Decisionmaker status, whenever they resume their activities they may 
request again and it will be natural thing they be welcomed back again.

The important thing is to not leave it opened for too long waiting for 
some Decisionsmakers to vote and that may not happen and things need to 
move on. Even more importantly it is necessary to have the total number 
of active Decisionmakers to be able to know what is the minimum number 
of votes necessary for something to pass. If there are too many sleepy 
Decisionmakers the minimum number of necessary votes will be higher and 
that may compromise something that need to move on.

Regards
Fernando

> Maybe rule 12 should instead be rule 0, but only if others wouldn't find
> this too pushy.
>
> Thank you again for your excellent efforts!
>
> Sam
>