Re: Social Committee proposal
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:49:56 +0100, Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Thinking about it, we can easily strike that out.
> Or replace it with something more lenient, such as random proposals
> by soc-ctte members themselves being limited to advisory decisions,
> rather than prescribing and overruling decisions.
> Thoughts? (Manoj also?)
I think that a member of the council should also have all the
rights and abilities of a non-member DD; so if any DD can bring a
resolution before the council, so can a council member, acting with
their DD hat on.
What you could do is set up a rule saying that any council
members bringing a resolution on the floor automatically recuse
themselves from the internal council vote that follows, so any feers
of undue influence go away.
>> My view implies replacing the DPL by a DPL board, so it's better if
>> we change the rules before to elect a board instead of a single
>> individual. :-)
> I don't think we can get both things done in time this year, unless
> we combine the ballot.
Umm, can't do that, unless you wat to do a DPL board in
*addition* to a DPL, since the constitution prescribes exactly
how a DPL is elected.
> I really fear that a combined ballot might also mean that there is a
> conflation of issues. I don't want that to happen.
> But, in any case, even if we finalize the terms on the soc-ctte
> ammendment soon, a vote on that will end only after four weeks
> (minimum GR discussion period is two weeks, and another two weeks
> pass for voting period).
> The nomination period for the leader election 2007 should end around
> the 25th of February, so that is too soon.
We are about a week away from start of nominations for the
"If you ever want to get anywhere in politics, my boy, you're going to
have to get a toehold in the public eye."
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C