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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:10:20PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible,
> > even to the point where votes would be run without any human
> > intervention.  I've thought about that before, but I don't have the
> > inclination to write any code for it.
> I'd much rather there be someone whose job it is to understand and
> interpret the constitution and to point out to people when what they're
> trying to do in a GR doesn't make sense under the constitution, won't have
> the effect they're aiming for, or will involve complications that they
> don't realize.

You don't need any special powers to do that, though, so there's no reason
to expect that to be the secretary's job, rather than any developer's. And
on the upside, if the person doing it doesn't have any special powers,
they can't very well be accused of abusing them (or threatening to abuse
them, or whatever else) when they make those points...

(It would also mean that any interpretation is done when the code's
being written; so the decisions are predicatable in advance, and if any
of them appear to be wrong, they can be debated in advance, rather than
being a distraction from a substantive debate that's trying to happen
at the same time)

Obviously it rules out any "implicit" interpretations, in the sense that
the act of coding up the rules would make them explicit by definition.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: