Update: governance page

Also, add tag pages for formal and consensus decisions.

1 files changed, 33 insertions, 35 deletions

diff --git a/governance.mdwn b/governance.mdwn
index 79553a5..5ccafd4 100644
--- a/governance.mdwn
+++ b/governance.mdwn
@@ -1,17 +1,6 @@
 [[!meta title="Ick—governance"]]
 
-
-> **THIS IS A DRAFT. IT IS NOT OFFICIAL YET.**
-
-Changes from first published version:
-
-* Added a reference to [lazy consensus][], suggested by Russ.
-* Voting membership gets automatically renewed by voting, suggested by
-  Russ.
-* Added a note that the constitution is likely to change as the
-  project grows.
-* If there's only one voting member, they are also the secretary.
-
+> **THIS IS A PROPOSAL. IT IS NOT OFFICIAL YET.**
 
 Ick constitution
 =============================================================================
@@ -19,21 +8,23 @@ Ick constitution
 Introduction
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-This constitution is the formal rules of the Ick project. The Ick
-project develops the Ick software, for continuous integration. The
-project governance structure is informally based on the principle of
-**do-ocracy**: those who do, decide. This constitution formalises the
-principle, to help the project grow, to make it easier for new
-contributors to join the project, and to avoid misunderstandings.
+This constitution is the formal rules of the Ick project: it defines
+how we govern the project. The Ick project develops the Ick software,
+for continuous integration. The project governance structure is
+informally based on the principle of **do-ocracy**: those who do,
+decide. This constitution formalises the principle, to help the
+project grow, to make it easier for new contributors to join the
+project, and to avoid misunderstandings.
 
 This is the first version of the constitution. It is expected to grow
 as the project gets more contributors. A probable change is to start
 using a [Debian-style condorcet][] voting method. It is overkill with
-only a handful of contributors, but will become more imporant later
+only a handful of contributors, but will become more important later
 on.
 
 [Debian-style condorcet]: https://www.debian.org/vote/
 
+
 Levels of membership
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
@@ -53,9 +44,10 @@ Voting membership may be revoked by a vote.
 
 No contributors or voting member is required to do work for the
 project, and the project cannot compel anyone to do anything. The
-project may, via the constituion of a formal decision, forbid
-something from being done in the context of a project, or require that
-if a thing is done, it gets done in a particular way.
+project may, via a formal decision, forbid something from being done
+in the context of a project, or require that if a thing is done, it
+gets done in a particular way.
+
 
 Decision making
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -64,7 +56,7 @@ Most decisions in the project are made by contributors as part of the
 work they do to contribute. These are called **mundane decisions**,
 and include things like how to structure a piece of code or
 documentation, how to name some component, etc. Mundane decisions do
-not normally need to be documented formally, but can be, if the
+not normally need to be documented formally, but can be, if a
 contributor thinks it useful.
 
 If a mundane decision is challenged, the project aims to find a
@@ -77,7 +69,6 @@ To make rough consensus easier to achieve, the project follows the
 controversial, just do it. We use version control, changes are easy to
 revert. If you're not entirely sure, announce that you're going to
 make the change in three days, which gives everyone time to object.
-Details of this may be specified as a project decision.
 
 [lazy consensus]: https://rave.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html
 
@@ -86,6 +77,7 @@ project will **vote** on the matter. This is called a **formal
 decision**. Formal decisions are documented on a project website, and
 marked as such.
 
+
 Voting procedure
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
@@ -105,6 +97,7 @@ period is 7 days**. The secretary receives votes, counts them, and
 announces the result, and documents the decision on the project
 website. **Votes are made public** at that time, if not earlier.
 
+
 Team delegations
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
@@ -115,7 +108,9 @@ of the delegation. The team members may be any contributors, not just
 formal members. Decisions within the team are made in the same manner
 as by the project as a whole, with contributors voting as if they were
 voting members. The team's consensus and formal decisions shall be
-documented in the same way as project decisions.
+documented in the same way as project decisions. The project may
+override a team's decision via project vote.
+
 
 Time and term limitations
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -146,17 +141,20 @@ Voting membership gets automatically renewed if the member has voted
 at least once in the preceding 12 months.
 
 It is the duty of the secretary to arrange new votes to renew terms in
-time before the terms end.
+time before the terms end, and to maintain a list of voting
+memberships.
 
 
-Other Ick governance
-=============================================================================
+Status
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+The current project secretary is Lars Wirzenius.
+
+The complete list of voting members in the project are:
+
+* Lars Wirzenius (expires 2018-09-01)
 
-* Technical policy: how the software gets developed, programming
-  languages, version control, issue tracking, website maintenance,
-  etc. This will be decided by the project following procedures
-  specified by the constitution.
+See also:
 
-* Code of conduct: This will be a formal project decision. A delegated
-  team may be given responsibility of enforcement. I'm personally in
-  favour of something like what Gitano uses.
+* list of [[consensus decisions|tag/consensus-decision]].
+* list of [[formal decisions|tag/formal-decision]].