First vote results
Earlier this month, we sent out the first Nivenly Member vote covering Pachli, Haidra, and general feedback. As per our bylaws, we need 50% of the membership to participate in a vote for quorum, and 50% of total voting members to be in consensus for any result to be binding. As we have 74 members, this means 37 needed to vote and 18 needed to agree to any individual item.
Unfortunately, only 14 responses were registered in total meaning that the results of the vote are not binding. However, they do still provide us with a direction from the Nivenly members, and that will help inform the decisions the Board now makes around these issues.
Thank you very much to everyone that participated in discussions around these projects, and special thanks to the members that voted.
The rest of this post will cover each question in turn with the results, and how we are interpreting the results.
New project proposals
Haidra: member project, incubated project, or not a good fit for Nivenly?
This was a question we anticipated would be fairly split and indeed the results are, with exactly 50% voting “NO” to Haidra being either a regular or incubated project, and 50% voting “YES”.
7% of the total (included in the 50% “NO” votes) voted that Haidra should reapply in a year with any concerns mitigated.
The Board will take the results of this vote on board and a decision will soon be published regarding Haidra’s status as a Nivenly project.
Pachli: member project, incubated project, or not a good fit for Nivenly?
This was much less contentious: 78.6% voted “YES” for Pachli being adopted as a Nivenly project. 50% of the total voted that it could be a member project as opposed to an incubated project.
The Board will take the results of this vote on board and a decision will soon be published regarding Pachli’s status as a Nivenly project.
Feedback
Did you partake in the member Q&A for Pachli or Haidra?
Only 43% said they did partake in the member Q&A for either project proposal.
The free feedback in this section points to Discord and GitHub not being the best options for discussion, and the onboarding to Discourse off-putting. There was also feedback that we could do a better job of reminding folks of what is actively under discussion and this is actionable feedback that we’ve taken on board.
Do you have an account on Discourse?
71.4% of the respondants do have an account on Discourse which is encouraging as it suggests the issue is more around encouraging involvement rather than issues with onboarding.
If we made a member-only area of GitHub for discussions, would it be preferable?
42.9% voted “YES” with 35.7% voting “NO”. The rest of the votes were evenly split between “Either would get more engagement”, “It doesn’t matter”, and “Not sure”.
We will pursue a strategy for discussions in future in which we create discussions on both Discourse and GitHub and encourage both areas to get maximum coverage.
If we made a member-only area of Discord, etc…
In contrast to the above, only 7% voted “YES” with 64.3% voting “NO”.
This helps guide us towards Discourse and GitHub as our primary avenues for discussion.