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

Re: Further draft Social Committee text

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
>  3. To the same ends, the individual members of the Social Committee
>     should when they consider it appropriate:
>     (1) Send informal comments about behaviour
>       An SC member may send a private message to a person or group,
>       pursuant to the SC's goals, giving that SC member's opinion
>       about anyone's behaviour, and giving such informal advice as the
>       member sees fit.
>       Any private communication by a Social Committee member, on a
>       matter which a recipient reasonably believes is made in the
>       member's SC capacity (whether that capacity is explicitly stated
>       or not) may be published by that recipient, without asking
>       permission from SC member who sent it.

The rest of the soc ctte should be in CC for such informal comments as
well. Because you want to avoid sending to many informal comments to the
same person, and if several messages are sent, it's best if they are

Maybe they don't need to be archived and accessible to the DD however.
Not sure about it.

>  4. The DPL will aim for the SC to consist of 5 Developers.  The SC
>     may not use its powers according to s2 above unless it has at
>     least 3 members.

Why give a precise size? I agree that 5 is a reasonable number (much more
than the size expected by Josip) but I don't see why we should forbid the
DPL to make this 8 or more if he really wishes so... as long as the
internal decision mechanism is adapted to that bigger size (inactive
people must not block the active members provided a minimum quorum of 3
is achieved).

>  5. Each year, the SC membership will be reconfirmed as follows:
>    (1) The Project Secretary will conduct a series of separate but
>        concurrent votes, one for each member of the SC.  In each
>        ballot, the options will be `Keep' and `Dismiss'.

I'd rather have a single vote. "Keep" is above NOTA, "Dismiss" is below
NOTA. The criticism of the method for multiple winner doesn't seem to
warrant the overhead of habing that many votes.

I also think we more or less agreed on a 2 year period? (I don't mind
having a yearly election, but I also don't see the point of it)

>  7. When the SC takes a formal action according to s2 above, the
>     notice it gives of this action will include:
>      (1) a statement of the decision;
>      (2) the reasons for that decision;
>      (3) which SC members concurred with the decision; and
>      (4) which (if any SC) members disagreed with the decision or the
>        reasons, and those dissenting members views and reasons.
>     This notice shall be sent at least to all of the parties to a
>     dispute and to anyone expected to implement it.  Anyone who
>     receives it may make it public.

Shouldn't those decisions be archived in a DD-readable mbox?

>  16. If sufficient suitable candidates come forward, the DPL will then
>      publish a proposed list of 5 members for the committee.  Any
>      volunteer not put forward by the DPL but who achieves K sponsors
>      within the next 2 weeks, will also be added to the list of
>      candidates.

I don't see why he should propose only 5 members. He can propose more and
the top-5 will be elected?

>  17. Simultaneous but separate ballots will be held by the Project
>      Secretary, as follows:
>       * Yes/No/FD on this Social Committee proposal
>       * Appoint/Reject for each candidate

Same concern as above, I'd go for a single vote on the members.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: