Propose dropping the requirement for an odd number of SC members #49
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
normanrz
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2025
joshmoore
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2025
Member
|
Ping @jakirkham and @rabernat |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently the governance document requires the ZSC to have an odd number of members. This makes recruiting new ZSC members hard, because we have to either recruit two new members at the same time, or wait for someone to resign. However, we'd like to make it easier to recruit new ZSC members.
This PR proposes removing the requirement that the ZSC is always odd. This would allow, e.g., recruitment of one new member at a time.
This change would raise the question, what would the ZSC do if there were an even number of members and we had to vote on something and the vote was tied? However, in practice the ZSC rarely votes on matters, rather operating by consensus. If deadlock becomes an issue, we could revisit the governance model again if needed.
This PR also proposes dropping the language around reviewing ZSC membership every January, as this seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would prefer to review and recruit new members at any time.