Re: Social Committee proposal (taking decisions by direct voting)
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:27:47PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:40:30PM +0100, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> > And what about having the election body enlarged to the complete (or
> > voluntary) developers crowd with a permanent and _easy_ way of voting.
> [...]
> > Note that I do not want to replace debate by voting. I simply prefer
> > to replace endless (and exhausting) discussions by decisions.
>
> Everybody voting on everything is not a direct solution for that problem;
> having someone break the cycle of endless discussion at the right time would
> be quite sufficient. Having soc-ctte (to whom people could appeal to get
> this done) would go a long way towards that fixing that issue.
Yes, but your were discussing how to choose people (elections every
other year...) such empowered. My idea is like 'let's (easily) elect
the judges' or even 'let's be the judges ourselves' (meaning people
feeling concerned by the issue at stake).
> Well, direct democracy would be a radical change. I'm not convinced that
> you should lump these two issues together - please start a new thread
> instead (what you just did is actually referred to as 'thread stealing').
>
> > or for decision taking in sub-committees (as the soc-ctte at discussion
> > there).
>
> That might be more applicable, but we'd first have to have soc-ctte. :)
'thread stealing' was not the intent (hence I will not feed it more
here) but your were discussing ways of taking decisions inside the
committee (like 16 people, quorum of 2, ...) and I feel direct
democracy is a too radical change to propose it to the whole project
right now. I also believe it too difficult to implement in already
existing (Debian) constitutional bodies governed by other (working)
rules. But I thought it might worth consideration (even for
experimentation) when designing and setting up a new body (like
soc-ctte). But you might consider it unnecessary over-kill anyways...
Best regards,
Frédéric Lehobey
Reply to: