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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) [081230 14:23]:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 08:52:55PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there
> > > should be an instance of appeal like the TC (though this isn't technical,
> > > but we have a body there that could be used - as you proposed). In case
> > > nobody disagrees too much with the decision by the secretary, we can go on
> > > as well. (And perhaps requiring Q developers for an appeal.)
> > 
> > Exactly, that's what I had in mind. Perhaps the TC could indeed be this
> > body; [...]
> > 
> > I'm not even saying that the secretary can't be part of such a body; the most
> > important part, really, is that I think recent history has shown no
> > single person should alone be responsible for interpreting a document as
> > important as our constitution.
> I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for
> the "first call" on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an
> appeal instance which makes the final decision if necessary.

... that could also make sense, I guess. But I'm not so sure it helps:

Whether we do this kind of thing or not, of course the secretary (or
anyone, really) is going to be interpreting the constitution on a
personal level, thereby assuming that his/her interpretation is correct.
Usually that's not going to be a problem, so we don't need the body.
Only when there's a conflict are people going to invoke that body.

The difference with your suggestion is that in the case of the
'first call' person, you're going to 'only' have that appeal procedure,
whereas if the group of people with final authority is the only
authority, there's no difference based on who is doing their own

> This will keep all the "trivial" cases of the appeal instance. (Which
> doesn't conflict with anything you said.)

I don't think trivial cases are going to be much of a problem. In any
case, I was thinking of a voting procedure for this body where the few
voters would only be allowed to vote "yes" or "no", plus perhaps a
rationale; we don't need a full condorcet system for interpretation,
methinks (but I have an open mind on that one...)

<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Reply to: