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

Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:46:10 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:

> > > Do you think it's likely for it to go on for more than one repetition?
> > I've no real idea but it might lead to a dead end. And having
> > infinite nominations/elections because there are e.g. "only" 10 and
> > not 16 persons seems to defeat the whole idea.
> (Just a note - my S2 boundary isn't really arbitrary, it's basically a
> function of the quorum.)

(Point taken but it's still a deliberate decision to say

> I have pondered this previously, but I decided to have a try like that
> still. If we allow the bar to be dropped arbitrarily down from the
> quorum-based quota, then how do we decide how many are sufficient and
> how many are not?

I don't have an answer ready but IMO S2 (or Q) is not more magical
then 5 or 13 or 42.

I guess at the end the size of the committee should:
* depend on its goals and tasks
* allow the group to work as a _group_

(The other question is of course what happens if there are not enough
candidates/winners. Maybe an (equally arbitrary) minimum size for a
second round could be defined?)

I hope that these technicalities can be better worked out if the
issued for the ctte are a little clearer.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
   `-    BOFH excuse #138:  BNC (brain not connected) 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: