Re: Further draft Social Committee text
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >The rest of the soc ctte should be in CC for such informal comments as
> Didn't we agreed to a private list? A lot of CCs tend to become broken
> at a certain time.
Sure. I never meant personal CC. It was just a way to express the intent
without making an assumption on how it's really done (looks like it
> >> 4. The DPL will aim for the SC to consist of 5 Developers. The SC
> >> may not use its powers according to s2 above unless it has at
> >> least 3 members.
> >Why give a precise size?
> According to my English knowledge "aim for consist of 5" is not really
> a precise size but rather a rule of thumb and according to this
> I think this makes perfectly sense.
> >> 5. Each year, the SC membership will be reconfirmed as follows:
> >> (1) The Project Secretary will conduct a series of separate but
> >> concurrent votes, one for each member of the SC. In each
> >> ballot, the options will be `Keep' and `Dismiss'.
> >I'd rather have a single vote. "Keep" is above NOTA, "Dismiss" is below
> >NOTA. The criticism of the method for multiple winner doesn't seem to
> >warrant the overhead of habing that many votes.
> IMHO Ian's suggestion enables that members will be sorted out effectively.
You really don't want to have 10 votes in parallel... replying 10 times to
10 mails, possibly typing the GPG passphrase several times.
You might tell it's only a "technical problem" in devotee, but until you
fix devotee to handle several ballots in the same mail, I won't endorse
this choice. For me concorcet is perfectly able to sort out those have
been ranked above NOTA from those who have been ranked below NOTA. I
really don't see the problem.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :