Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)"):
> Section 6 (and elsewhere) talks about the "Technical Commitee". Can I
> assume that we don't currently have one of those? If I understand the
> constitution, this means that Ian will have to appoint 5 members, and
> those 5 members will have a week to appoint a 6th member? I saw no
> criterion for deciding whether extra committee members were needed for the
> extra 2 possible seats. Am I just missing something here?
The motion that I proposed would have me appoint the entire technical
committee for the first time. If we don't do that then I have to
appoint one member, who appoints all the remaining members until there
are 6, at which point I get to veto the 7th and 8th.
I suppose I could appoint myself initially :-).
> Section 8.2 on Delegate Appointment looks like it could be a real can of
> worms. There seems to be an inate contradiction in this section. First it
> says that the Project leader may replace a Delegate, but then later says
> that the PL can not make appointment contingent on the deligates
> decisions. It could be argued then, that the PL can not dismiss a delegate
> based on the performance (decisions made) of that delegate! What other
> criterion would be more appropriate? Even sloth is a decision (except for
> the species so named, of course ;-) made by the delegate.
It says that the leader `may not _make the position conditional on_
_particular_ decisions'. So, the leader can fire a delegate for being
generally crap, but can't say `I'll give you the position if you do X'
or `I'll fire you if you do Y'. To me making A conditional on B means
not just using B as a part of your decision, but using it as a major
or published criterion.
> And finally, (yes, I'm almost out of things to say ;-) Section A.5.8 seems
> to make the idea of a Quorum recursive. It does this by first requiring
> that a quorum be present for a vote, and then expanding the requirement by
> requiring that same number of votes for the proposal in order that it
> pass. This is basically a redefinition of what constitutes a quorum in
> this case. It seems overly complex, as all you have to do is the
> appropriate math and propose that for these classes of vote a quorum is
> constituted of X*Q where X is the recomputed fudge factor.
I'm very confused by this. s.A.5(8) just says what a quorum means;
the number that constitutes a quorum in any context is specified
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com