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

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5.1)

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)"):
> ...
> > 	6.1.4 reads:
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >     4. Overrule a developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> >        The Technical Committee may ask a developer to take a particular
> >        technical course of action even if the developer does not wish to;
> >        this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
> >        determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
> >        justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
> >        implemented.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 	Does this mean a vote held by the technical committee? Or a
> >  vote held as a general SRP? If the former, is there anyway for the
> >  developrs as a body to override it? Section 4.1 does not mention this
> >  as a power that the developers have as a group (The technical
> >  committee is not a delegate, as I read the constituition).
> That's right.  There is not at the moment a way for the developers to
> override the technical committee, other than by amending the
> consitution to allow it at the time.
> I think that it's a very bad idea to have technical decisions made by
> voting amongst a large group of people.  The point of the technical
> committee is to ensure technical competence and to insulate those
> technical decisions from popularity contests and votes.
> If might be a good idea to explicitly allow the developers to override
> the committee with a 2:1 supermajority, since they can achieve the
> same effect by amending the constitution.
> I've also been wondering if 2:1 is too low a supermajority for
> constitutional amendments.
> Does anyone else have any thoughts ?  I haven't included any changes
> to this area in my most recent draft.
I live in an "Intentional Community". We work together in a voluntary
operation of our community. We have "Covenants and Restrictions" and a set
of "Bylaws" that define our proceedures. The C&Rs govern what can and
can't be done on land in the Co-op. The Bylaws, among other things, define
how we make changes to the bylaws, the C&Rs, and how we elect leaders.

For us, changes in the C&Rs or the Bylaws that effect the land (deading
easements to the county and such) require an 80% vote. We have only had to
do such a vote once. It was an issue we all agreed on, and it still took a
year to collect the necessary signatures, but it passed.

Just a benchmark to reference against.

Waiting is,

_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

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

Reply to: