Re: Re: [DRAFT PROPOSAL] PEAR constitution

Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > Greg Beaver wrote: > >> The previous PEAR Group made decisions, and it took almost a year before >> Martin managed to commit them to the documentation (thank you Martin - >> this is no indictment of you or the PEAR Group, only the faults in the >> structure itself). We need someone who is responsible for things like > > As such I propose to make decisions final and binding only from the > second its commited to peardoc (it does not yet have to be build to be > binding though). This is actually in the constitution proposal I wrote because of this suggestion you made to me earlier :) >>> Create a set of groups within PEAR that consist of a similar set of >>> packages (eg: the Web Service Group; the Math Group; the Gtk Group). >>> This is _not_ the same as PEAR categories; two or more categories may be >>> clubbed to form one group. Ideally; we have around 10-15 such groups of >>> 30-40 packages each. >> >> Who decides which packages go into a group? What if there is a dispute >> (should Console_Getopt go into the command-line parsing group or in the >> PEAR Installer-related group?), how is that resolved? > > Well it would need to be bootstrapped and from then on it would be > decided on by the group representatives if its not obvious to which > existing group something belongs. > >> If one developer has a dispute with the group leader and therefore the >> group that can't be resolved, who do they appeal to? > > the council of group representatives. > >> When do elections happen? How long are terms? Who decides whether a >> new package is accepted into PEAR? > > 1 year terms > > regards, > Lukas > > PS: this discussion solely belongs on pear-dev and not pear-core Greg