Re: Social committee proposal
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Social committee proposal"):
> Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...]
> > 7. The initial Social Committee will consist of of five elected
> > Developers. The Project Secretary is requested to organise and
> > hold an election, in a manner similar to that for Project Leader.
> > 8. The Committee shall be responsible for appointing new members,
> > removing existing members, and varying its size, as and when it
> > sees fit.
> I feel that this would probably entrench any majority views,
> particularly with only five members. Replace with:
Do you mean entrench the views about reasonable behaviour held by the
majority of Developers ? The whole purpose of this exercise is to
give effect to the views about reasonable behaviour held by the
majority of Developers.
It's not entrenched because the DPL and/or the Developers can fire the
committee or individual members at will.
> > There is no requirement for the Social Committee to publish
> > requests made to it, its decisions or requests, or its
> > deliberations except that access control decisions it makes
> > under (4) above shall be public.
> I don't think we should hide these problems. Replace with:
I think that it would be better to allow people to contact the
committee in confidence, secure in the knowledge (for example) that if
the SC thinks they're being an arsehole no-one else is going to know.