Re: Comments on the constitution?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Comments on the constitution?
- From: Bernd Zeimetz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:18:12 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4EBCF664.email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20110830222002.GB32497@gwolf.org>
- References: <20110811100845.GW22547@ftbfs.de> <20110829081722.GA3155@upsilon.cc> <20110830162907.GC30819@gwolf.org> <20110830191619.GE3795@einval.com> <20110830222002.GB32497@gwolf.org>
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
GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F