Re: QT4CG meeting 086: Suggestion

 *Communication: Protocol for reviewing and voting on the acceptance of a
PR*

I want to express my gratitude to Christian Gruen who raised this topic for
today's meeting, to Michael Kay and everyone else for their remarks and
suggestions.

Here is a step in the process of voting/acceptance of a PR (pull request),
that would help us get more certainty and objectivity:

Before voting, or even starting a discussion on a given PR, the Chairman
asks:

"*People who haven't read the PR and/or are not sure they understand the
matter well and whether they could have a firm conviction on how to vote
for it - please raise your hand*."

The number of these people then needs to be subtracted from the total
number of attendants and the result must be used to determine if there is a
quorum.

If there is a quorum, only people who did not raise their hand should vote.

What do you think about having this step in our PR discussion/approval
process?

Seems obvious, but can it be improved even further?

Thanks,
Dimitre

On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 4:31 AM Christian Grün <cg@basex.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I wonder whether we could use the next meeting to spend some time on
> questioning our current communication culture. I’m increasingly concerned
> about offensive rhetoric and a lack of serious mutual respect that makes
> the search for consensual solutions exhausting, if not impossible.
>
> Early on, we had an action to improve the diversity of the group. Due to
> various circumstances, this has certainly been hard to achieve, but perhaps
> we could instead spend some time on clarifying how we want to work
> together. Everyone’s willingness to be open to the experiences and
> competencies of others in the group, even if they sometimes, or often,
> diverge from one’s own experience, feels to me to be a core necessity if we
> want our C to stand for Community, not Controversy.
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Christian
>
>
>