OK, Iāve found a way to get every user with the commit bit in the GitHub org. I donāt have everyoneās email address, however. Iāve added all the users I do have emails for, but Iām missing the following:
At this point Iāve added everyone that Iām able to and everyone that has reached out to me. Happy to add anyone that is missing but at this point there isnāt much else I can do to get the stragglers.
I think we can check the āGet the pypa-committers mailing list up-to-date (and a way to maintain this?)ā checkbox here and Iāll be bringing PyPA as a PSF Fiscal Sponsoree forward for a vote shortly.
I do think we should send a mail saying āHey, weāre going to start using this for PyPA-level decision-making votes now, since PEP 609 is now an accepted PEPā before we start the votes (in case thereās folks in PyPA who arenāt keeping up with all-the-things-around-that-governance-discussion.
Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but in the PyPA as a PSF Fiscal Sponsoree vote, Iām noticing that itās already very noisy, the votes are public and it seems like it will be somewhat annoying manual task to count the votes.
Is there any way we can move to an implementation where the vote is advertised on PyPA-committers, but conducted via discourse or Helios or some other system that counts the votes for you and doesnāt involve everyone on the list getting an e-mail every time someone votes?
That it is ambiguous what PEP means when it comes to counting the votes proportion. Is it +1ās divided by all possible voters or by those who actually have casted a vote. @pf_moore seems to agree and I think itās reasonable to only count the ones who casted their votes too.
As I said on the mailing list, my reading of the PEP is that āat least two thirds of votersā means people who vote. Looking at the full sentence,
Each PyPA committer can vote once, and can choose one of +1 and -1. If at least two thirds of voters vote +1, then the vote succeeds.
Iād have expected that if the intention had been two thirds of everyone, weād have said āPyPA committersā, not āvotersā. But itās equally likely that we simply didnāt think of the ambiguity.
If we do make it ā2/3 of people who votedā, we should really add a quorum mechanism so that proposals that donāt get enough votes canāt get in with minimal support.
I agree that āvotersā should mean āpeople who cast a voteā, especially as it requires a supermajority.
I also agree with @pf_moore that a quorum requirement would make sense, though I donāt think itās an urgent need. Iād be happy with a fairly low quorum threshold, like 1/3.
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Iāll agree that I seem to have misinterpreted the PEP, Iāll chalk that up due to lack of coffee. It probably makes sense to amend the PEP to say:
- If at least two thirds of voters vote +1, then the vote succeeds.
+ If at least two thirds of recorded votes are +1, then the vote succeeds.
Why not just mute the thread after voting? I think the infrequency in which weāll conduct a vote doesnāt merit this much overhead. Also, if we donāt actually need 2/3 of voters to participate, thereās even less emails to receive and less votes to count.