Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> I hereby propose that we elect a chair for the committee and decide on a
> proceedure for approaching this committee.
>
> I would like to nominate Raul for the postion of chairperson, if he is
> willing to serve.
Yikes!
But, yeah, I'm willing to be chairperson.
Just as a reminder though:
(1) technically there's already a vote being taken for who is the
chairperson, and technically all of us are in the running. From 6.1.7
of the constitution:
The Chairman is elected by the Committee from its members. All
members of the committee are automatically nominated; the
committee vote starting one week before the post will become
vacant (or immediately, if it is already too late). The members
may vote by public acclamation for any fellow committee member,
including themselves; there is no None Of The Above option. The
vote finishes when all the members have voted or when the outcome
is no longer in doubt. The result is determined according to
Concorde Vote Counting.
And we do need a Chairman, so if someone besides Dale casts a vote in
my direction and I've not been convinced that someone else would do a
better job then I'll cast a vote for myself.
(2) Basically, all that's supposed to be required of a proposal to the
technical committee is that any detailed design work already be done,
and that the decision on the proposal be within our scope (technical
policy, something where multiple developers disagree, or when somebody
asks us for advice and delegates something to us that they had authority
on).
So if someone sends us a detailed recommendation, and it looks right
(doesn't cut the feet out from under anyone[*], technically sound,
etc.) basically we have the option of approving it... If we don't like
it, well, our discussion on the issue is public and we can make a formal
statement if we think it's important.
--
Raul
[*] People do expect us to make very high quality decisions...
Reply to: