On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 10:20:37AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > However, that doesn't mean OFTC is any better. If you read through David > G's email that reads more like a press release than anything, and cut > through all the layers of double-talk and manager-speak, you'll see one > alarming word: pseudo-democratic. He talks about the staff choosing new > people "among themselves". > > Indeed, read the constitution: > 3. Voting > 3a. Eligibility and Candidates > Voters in elections shall be limited to members of Staff who have > served a minimum of three months. Also, a member of Staff may only be > eligible if they have received no more than one reprimand from the > Ombudsman since the previous election. > All voters shall also be candidates. There are no nominations. Any > voter may elect any other voter for any position. A voter must also > vote themselves into some position. > > So, basically, instead of having a cabal of 1, OFTC have gone the > obviously far superior route of having a cabal of 16. Interestingly enough, this is the opposite to the issues I see with OFTC's organisational structure. They have removed the limitation of having a single person ultimately responsible, but simultaneously have removed any possibility for rapid and effective action (at least, under their constitution. I have no doubts that they will summarily ignore it when trouble strikes). Rule-by-committee is a great joke. To quote Heinlein, "A committee is an organism with six or more legs and no brain". Even the US elects an executive that has incredible power. They have to justify the use of this power, but they still have it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpfx1lW9Gqgs.pgp
Description: PGP signature