Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:33:02PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > You didn't quote that clause fully. It says "if the team fails to make any
> > additions or removals as described above". The "as described above" part is
> > integral, it's not logical to disconnect it and make it optional, is it?
>
> Well, `as described above' might be taken to refer generally to the
> process. In particular, a team might say that they had made additions
> or removals `as described above' and might even feel that they were
> right.
>
> If you're going to make this a precondition before some power becomes
> operational, you need to more be clear about when it's met. I think
> you might be better off removing some of the motherhood and apple pie
> from this document to make room for more `who decides'.
>
> Anyway, having taken your interpretation, your proposal says that the
> DPL can always add members to teams. Your wording obfuscates this.
> If this is truly what you mean then why not just say something like
> `if the DPL considers it necessary, the DPL may add members to
> teams'.
>
> Note that the DPL is already required by the constitution to act
> according to consensus etc.
Because this compels the DPL to first verify wheter teams follow these
rules, and then act only if they don't do so. It doesn't give the DPL
a carte blanche to add members to teams, and that's intentional.
Can you suggest a better way to phrase this? Preferably not pseudo-code ;)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: