first cut at project governance doc

1 files changed, 45 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/project/governance.bb b/doc/project/governance.bb
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e13f6218c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/project/governance.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+[h2]$Projectname Governance[/h2]
+
+Governance relates to the management of a project and particularly how this relates to conflict resolution.
+
+This project uses a dual-governance model.
+
+The project as a whole and the repository were created initially by Mike Macgirvin; who controls the project copyright, and the project license, and manages the project as a Self Appointed Benevolent Dictator for Life. He holds veto power over any project proposal or decision and his word is final.
+
+That said, Mike has no interest in running the day to day activities of the project and influencing its direction, other than to protect his own work from sabotage. 
+
+The internal project structure contains multiple "configurations" known as 'basic', 'standard', and 'pro'. Mike's veto power extends to any proposal or decision which he feels might adversely affect the 'pro' configuration.
+
+The 'basic and 'standard' configurations are controlled completely by the community. If the proposal or decision is crafted in such a way that its effects are limited to these configurations, Mike will consider relinquishing his power of veto and convert it to a normal community vote.
+
+Mario Vavti has done an incredible amount of work on the usability and theming of the project and holds veto power over any proposal or decision which might impact usability and "look and feel"; and his decision is also final. 
+
+Mario's veto power is likewise restricted to anything using the standard project 'theme'. If a new theme is created and an otherwise vetoed decision is implemented entirely in this different theme and has no impact on the standard project theme, his veto [b]may[/b] also be turned into a normal community vote.
+
+This ability to work around a veto is at the discretion of Mike and Mario. They [b]may[/b] choose to relinquish their veto if the scope of the work is limited as described above, and in most circumstances they will leave the decision to the community. They are not obligated to do so. 
+
+[h3]Community Governance[/h3]
+
+Beyond those two special cases, the project is maintained and decisions made by the 'community'. The governance structure is still evolving. Until the structure is finalised, decisions are made in the following order:
+
+[ol]
+[*] Lazy Consensus
+
+If a project proposal is made to one of the community governance forums and there are no serious objections in a "reasonable" amount of time from date of proposal (we usually provide 2-3 days for all interested parties to weigh in), no vote needs to be taken and the proposal will be considered approved. Some concerns may be raised at this time, but if these are addressed during discussion and work-arounds provided, it will still be considered approved. 
+
+[*] Veto
+
+If a proposal is vetoed, it is not necessarily the final word. See above on how to convert a veto into a normal community vote. This can be done by framing the proposal so that it does not impact the 'pro' configuration or the standard theme.
+
+[*] Community Vote
+
+A decision which does not have a clear mandate or clear consensus, but is not vetoed, can be taken to a community vote. At present this is a simple popular vote in one of the applicable community forums.  At this time, popular vote decides the outcome. This may change in the future if the community adopts a 'council' governance model. This document will be updated at that time with the updated governance rules. 
+[/ol]
+
+Community Voting does not always provide a pleasant outcome and can generate polarised factions in the community (hence the reason why other models are under consideration). If the proposal is 'down voted' there are still several things which can be done and the proposal re-submitted with slightly different parameters (convert to an addon, convert to an optional feature which is disabled by default, etc.). If interest in the feature is high and the vote is "close", it can generate lots of bad feelings amongst the losing voters. On such close votes, it is [b]strongly recommended[/b] that the proposer take steps to address any concerns that were raised and re-submit.
+
+  
+
+ 
+
+