Re: Comments on the constitution?

[Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>]

On 08/31/2011 12:20 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Steve McIntyre dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:16:19PM +0100]:
>>> Humm… An idea could be:
>>>
>>> ‣ The term is defined to be for one year, with the possibility of one
>>>  automatic renewal
>>> ‣ If by (election date + 10 months) the DPL sends a (signed,
>>>  validated, blah) message, a simple referendum is held: secret vote
>>>  between a "yes" and a "no" (and... Further discussion? :-} )
>>>  ‣ If the DPL seeking renewal gets a majority, his term is prolonged to
>>>    a second year
>>>  ‣ If the DPL does not get a majority, he can still participate in a
>>>    regular election
>>> ‣ This mechanism can only be used once — A DPL wanting to run a third
>>>  term must win a regular (full) election
>>
>> /me shudders at the extra complexity, especially how it would be
>> worded in the constitution. I'm tempted to say: let's just leave
>> things the way they are.
> 
> Oh, just wait until we get in DEP(n+1) where we require the
> Constitution to be automatically parsable as well.

That would be DEP(n+2) as DEP(n+1) is the one which requires
automatically parsable DEPs.


-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F