Hi! * Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> [070212 03:32]: > + <li>During the following month, any Developer may nominate > + themselves as a candidate member of the Social Committee. > + Every such nomination must be seconded by one other developer.</li> Any specific reason for having a full month as nomination period? > + <li>The next two weeks are the polling period during which > + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee elections > + are made public after the election is finished.</li> And why shall votes become public? What's voting about, if not done in secret? > + <li>At least one third of all elected candidates should have been > + members of the project for at least Y/2 years, where Y is the age > + of the Project in years. If fewer than one third of candidates meet > + this requirement, the election process is repeated.</li> An native english speaker may corect me, but "should" is normaly used in a kind of "would be very fine if, but not strictly necessary" meaning, isn't it? So why first using "should" and later "if not, then we do it again"? And why that rule? I would think in a social ctte, fresh blood is very welcome, because they (probalbly) haven't taken part in any flamewar and therefore are the best to choice for a ctte, that should be as objective and neutral as possible? > + <li> > + <p>Public discussion and decision-making.</p> > + > + <p>Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by > + members of the committee, are made public on the Social Committee > + public discussion list. > + There is no separate secretary for the Committee.</p> > + </li> So a member of the social ctte may not talk to an other member of the social ctte about topics of the social ctte? Even if they meet in person? An other point, where I fail to see the reason for it. AFAIK the tech ctte has private list for discussion, and I would think that social problems / discussions should be considered even more private. Why not some kind of "draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members of the committee, are made public on the Social Committee public discussion list. Discussion is made public to those the parties involved or at their unison request to all."? I'm still not sure, if I like the idea, and how a social ctte should work... but that are the points I would to see adressed before considerering not to vote against such a change ;) Yours sincerely, Alexander
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature