Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
Anthony Towns wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:11:02PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>> Changes for the current draft:
>> > + In case the DPL and ex-secretary can't agree on an candidate for new
>> > secretary, the decision is made by the developers in a GR, and not by
>> > the SPI board.
>> Would this GR be conducted by the outgoing secretary? If the reason for
>> the disagreement is that the secretary has lost the confidence of a
>> significant number of developers, that rule could make a bad situation
>> worse.
> The DPL can authorise other developers to check the secretary's work --
> this has happened in the past after, iirc, the 2002 DPL election. For
> public votes, all the data can be published after the fact, rendering
> the secretary powerless to influence the outcome at all.
It might not be so simple, if for example the dispute was over who was
eligible to vote.
> So even if that did happen (which I don't think's likely), I think the
> project could work around it satisfactorily anyway.
I'm sure Debian would muddle through. On the other hand, one of the
purposes of a written constitution is to be as helpful as possible in
just such 'crises'.
Anyway, you've understood what my point was; I won't argue for the sake
of arguing.
-M-
Reply to: