[SC Vote Required] Expansion of GH wishlist channel scope

[anajsana]

Create new resolution in proposals folder related to the expansion of GitHub wishlist channel scope and change of name for SC to cast their vote

Instructions:

Steering Committee Members should cast their vote by making edits on the line where their name appears. If needed, members can leave comments regarding their final vote in the Rationale section by adding their initials. As an alternative, members can leave a comment with their vote on this PR conversation page, and @anajsana will update the document accordingly.

- Annania Melaku - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Ashley Wolf - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Brittany Istenes - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Georg Kunz - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Leslie Hawthorn - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Nik Peters - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}
- Stephen Augustus - {approve/decline/abstain/absent}

[ashleywolf]

abstain

[hyandell]

This would be pointless. It's not a channel for "I wish that this service, or some service, offered something", it's a channel that GitHub were listening to. If GitLab wanted a channel, that could be setup, and the same for any other service.

[justaugustus]

/vote

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote created

@justaugustus has called for a vote on [SC Vote Required] Expansion of GH wishlist channel scope (#313).

The members of the following teams have binding votes:

Team
@todogroup/gitvote-steering

Non-binding votes are also appreciated as a sign of support!

How to vote

You can cast your vote by reacting to this comment. The following reactions are supported:

In favor	Against	Abstain
👍	👎	👀

Please note that voting for multiple options is not allowed and those votes won't be counted.

The vote will be open for 28days. It will pass if at least 51% of the users with binding votes vote In favor 👍. Once it's closed, results will be published here as a new comment.

[justaugustus]

To @hyandell's point and to explain my against vote, I believe that the channel exists to provide a focused forum for GitHub employees to be able to review. The value is diminished when you generalize the channel purpose.

That said, a few questions we should try to answer as follow-ups:

1. Is this providing value to the Hubbers that have access to the channel?
2. What is the scope of vendors allowed to ask for this type of forum within the TODO Group?

[gkunz]

I would appreciate to have a copy of the conversation which is referenced in the resolution either in this issue or in the resolution itself for context. Currently, I feel don't have enough context - also based on the fact that I was not a member of this channel up until now.

That said, a few questions we should try to answer as follow-ups: 1. Is this providing value to the Hubbers that have access to the channel? 2. What is the scope of vendors allowed to ask for this type of forum within the TODO Group?

I agree with this.

[annania]

To @hyandell's point and to explain my against vote, I believe that the channel exists to provide a focused forum for GitHub employees to be able to review. The value is diminished when you generalize the channel purpose.

That said, a few questions we should try to answer as follow-ups:

1. Is this providing value to the Hubbers that have access to the channel?
2. What is the scope of vendors allowed to ask for this type of forum within the TODO Group?

I agree with Stephen's comment - expanding the channel purpose diminishes value. As far as (Q2) I want to ensure that this does not signify an open invitation for all vendors to seek channels. GitHub holds a prominent position in open source and is a key platform for community participation. GitLab as well. Where do we draw the line for vendors?

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	2	2	3

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
annania	Against	2024-05-21 15:07:33.0 +00:00:00
gkunz	Abstain	2024-05-21 14:37:49.0 +00:00:00
ashleywolf	Abstain	2024-05-20 16:47:53.0 +00:00:00
justaugustus	Against	2024-05-19 5:05:19.0 +00:00:00
@lhawthorn	Pending
@BrittanyIstenes	Pending
@nikpete	Pending

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	2	2	3

Binding votes (4)

User	Vote	Timestamp
ashleywolf	Abstain	2024-05-20 16:47:53.0 +00:00:00
annania	Against	2024-05-21 15:07:33.0 +00:00:00
justaugustus	Against	2024-05-19 5:05:19.0 +00:00:00
gkunz	Abstain	2024-05-21 14:37:49.0 +00:00:00
@lhawthorn	Pending
@BrittanyIstenes	Pending
@nikpete	Pending

[nikpete]

abstain and agree with Stephen's comment.

[git-vote[bot]]

There is already a vote in progress in this pull request @anajsana.

Please wait until it is closed before creating a new one.

[anajsana]

/check-vote

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	2	3	2

Binding votes (5)

User	Vote	Timestamp
justaugustus	Against	2024-05-19 5:05:19.0 +00:00:00
gkunz	Abstain	2024-05-21 14:37:49.0 +00:00:00
annania	Against	2024-05-21 15:07:33.0 +00:00:00
ashleywolf	Abstain	2024-05-20 16:47:53.0 +00:00:00
nikpete	Abstain	2024-06-04 9:27:18.0 +00:00:00
@lhawthorn	Pending
@BrittanyIstenes	Pending

[anajsana]

Since 4 votes in favor are needed to pass the threshold (51%) and there are only 2 people who haven’t voted, it is impossible to reach the threshold of 4 votes in favor with only 2 remaining votes.

This resolution will be declined and GH wishlist will keep as it is

[lhawthorn]

I am sorry I missed this vote and will be more diligent to keep up on requests in the future.

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote status

So far 0.00% of the users with binding vote are in favor (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	2	3	2

Binding votes (5)

User	Vote	Timestamp
justaugustus	Against	2024-05-19 5:05:19.0 +00:00:00
nikpete	Abstain	2024-06-04 9:27:18.0 +00:00:00
ashleywolf	Abstain	2024-05-20 16:47:53.0 +00:00:00
gkunz	Abstain	2024-05-21 14:37:49.0 +00:00:00
annania	Against	2024-05-21 15:07:33.0 +00:00:00
@lhawthorn	Pending
@BrittanyIstenes	Pending

[git-vote[bot]]

Vote closed

The vote did not pass.

0.00% of the users with binding vote were in favor (passing threshold: 51%).

Summary

In favor	Against	Abstain	Not voted
0	2	3	2

Binding votes (5)

User	Vote	Timestamp
@nikpete	Abstain	2024-06-04 9:27:18.0 +00:00:00
@annania	Against	2024-05-21 15:07:33.0 +00:00:00
@gkunz	Abstain	2024-05-21 14:37:49.0 +00:00:00
@ashleywolf	Abstain	2024-05-20 16:47:53.0 +00:00:00
@justaugustus	Against	2024-05-19 5:05:19.0 +00:00:00