See parent thread with all sections of the proposed governance model here.
See original text with explanatory comments here.
2 - Decision making
It is recognized that the governance model needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the many and varied kinds of decisions that are made in an open source project on a daily basis.
There are, however, some guiding principles that we recommend are followed, which provide alignment with our core values.
2.1 - General guidelines - timing
As an international community distributed across timelines, making decisions should always take into consideration allowing the people who may have an interest in that decision the time to review and provide feedback
1.1. For non-trivial decisions, the discussion should be open for at least 36 hours to ensure that contributors in other timezones have time to review. Consideration should also be given to weekends and other holiday periods to ensure active contributors all have reasonable time to become involved in the discussion process if they wish.
1.2 For significant decisions which have a wide impact across the project, or reflect a substantial change in a team’s area of responsibility, it is strongly advised that a longer timebox should be employed. Generally speaking this might be something like two weeks, to ensure that appropriate communication and promotion of the decisions being taken can happen.
2.2 - General guidelines - methodology
In the Mautic community we default to using consensus as a means for establishing support for a decision, often using lazy consensus where the motion is considered passed if there are not any objections.
Sometimes there may be a need to request a quorum - a minimum percentage of the people who could vote, to turn up to vote. This helps to ensure that such a consensus decision is taken with the majority being involved in coming to that decision.
2.2.1. Any voting member can request a quorum for any decision being made by providing a clear and public statement as to why the community should expect to have a quorum for that decision. The leadership of the relevant entity to which the decision belongs will consider the request and provide feedback on their decision for or against a quorum being required.