[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Initial draft proposed consitutution (v0.1)

Ian writes:
> They already have this power, and effectively the leader's power to
> suspend a developer is already only temporary.  The developers always
> have the power to overrule _any_ decision by the the leader or a
> delegate.

The leader's power to arbitrarily expel and admit developers could be used
by a clique to gain control.  While I don't think this is too likely, a
constitution should not leave such loopholes.  More serious is the matter
of perception.  I think your wording gives an authoritarian impression,
with one person appearing to have the power to admit or expel.  Mine makes
it clear that these important decisions are in the hands of the membership.

> Do you think that requiring sqrt(n)/2 seconders for a motion to
> overrule the delegates' decision to expel a developer is unreasonable
> ?  It seems to me that a motion which would be likely to pass would
> have no trouble getting the required number of seconders.

I don't think that most members will realize that such a thing is possible
unless it is explicitly stated in the constitution.  Upon receiving an
expulsion notice, they would just leave.  Once again, I see it as matter of
perception.  Expulsion is a serious matter: requiring that it be put to a
vote emphasizes that.  Note that I would require a majority of developers,
not of voters.  If the guy is such jerk that he needs to go, you should
have no trouble getting the required number of votes.
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: