Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
February 21, 2018 05:00
Message ID: CANgJU+VO8NUDC2MmyPbdoPqigTnK+hpjivSV9y2hBwXfemail@example.com
On 21 Feb 2018 11:31, "Andreas Koenig" <
>>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:32:52 +0100, demerphq <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> The only other option is propose a vote of no-confidence in the
> Pumpking, or request that one of the voters does so.
Would you kindly point me to the place where this is documented?
No I cannot. It isn't documented. Not all rules or customs are documented.
Think "common law" not "statute law".
> If asked in the interest of fairness I would make the proposal, even
> though I would *vehemently* vote and lobby against it.
Is it documented which people share the privilege to make proposals,
vote and lobby with you and where such proceedings take place?
Everybody gets to make proposals and to lobby. The committers get to vote.
At least that is how it has worked over the last 10 years or so and the
last four or five pumpkings at least.
I will admit that my theory that we can dismiss the pumpking is untested,
but it seems a natural extension of the fact we have a straw poll on the
nominated candidate. It is notable that we have not nominated a pumpking
who had a commit bit for quite some time, and there has not been in my
experience any votes against the nominee, thus the pumpking had been
elected by universal acclamation every time I have had the privilege of