Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)
On 2 Apr 1998, James LewisMoss wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 15:10:03 -0500 (EST), Dale Scheetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
It wouldn't matter if the delegate only has one decision to make and then
People who now exercise delegated authority over areas of the project
include Brian W. (Release Director), myself as testing coordinator, and
many others too numerous to mention here.
It was my assumtion that this clause was inserted to protect folks like
Brian (or myself) being ejected in a fit of pique by the Project Director
over a valid decision made by the delegate.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com