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

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)

>>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 15:10:03 -0500 (EST), Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> said:

 Dale> This looks great Ian!  Of course, I do have some comments ;-)

 Dale> There are about 4 major issues I would like to speak to, none
 Dale> of which would change my vote for the document (I'm for it if
 Dale> that wasn't clear), yet need to be thought about.

 Dale> In any case, I am sorry that this relationship between Debian
 Dale> and SPI needs to be addressed here at all :-(

It is unfortunate, and I agree.  I don't think it is appropriate in
this document.

 Dale> What is not clear is what the constitution thinks "no longer in
 Dale> question" actually means.

Actually assuming we are 2:1 Yes to No.  Then after 134 yes votes we
know yes has won.  After 67 no votes we know no has won.  At this
point there is no need to take more votes.  This, I believe, is what
is meant by 'no longer in question'.

 Dale> The rest of what I have to say is relatively unimportant (at
 Dale> least to me) so I will start with the most interesting ;-)

 Dale> Section 6 (and elsewhere) talks about the "Technical
 Dale> Commitee". Can I assume that we don't currently have one of
 Dale> those? If I understand the constitution, this means that Ian
 Dale> will have to appoint 5 members, and those 5 members will have a
 Dale> week to appoint a 6th member? I saw no criterion for deciding
 Dale> whether extra committee members were needed for the extra 2
 Dale> possible seats. Am I just missing something here?

This section seemed quite confusing to me as well.

 Dale> criterion would be more appropriate? Even sloth is a decision
 Dale> (except for the species so named, of course ;-) made by the
 Dale> delegate.

I had this concern.  Possibly stating 'The project leader may not
dismiss a delegate based on a decision made.'  I also got the
impression that delegates were one shot deals.  On one issue a
delegate is created and makes a decision (hopefully based on good
arguments) and thereafter is no longer a delegate.  The Leader may use 
that delegate again, but the delegate status is no more.

I can see however long term delegates, and something should be put in
here stating the Leader cannot dismiss a delegate based on decisions
or perceived future decisions.  (where decisions here should be
defined as (and I don't write legaleese so this is just an attempt)
'Decisions for which the delegate was originally appointed' (meaning
if the delegate decides to get rude then that's a decision where you
could remove them, but if a delegate makes a technical decision about
some aspect of debian then the Leader could not remove them (based on
that decision of course))).  I'm not sure that made any sense.

 Dale> I formally second the proposal that the draft constitution be
 Dale> used as the current working proceedures for adopting said draft
 Dale> constitution.

 Dale> I should also be considered as a second to any proposal to
 Dale> adopt the draft constitution as it stands.

And my third.

@James LewisMoss <dres@dimensional.com> |  Blessed Be!
@    http://www.dimensional.com/~dres   |  Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach

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

Reply to: