On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 08:21:33AM +0000, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> For the DPL, if we haven't heard from them in, say, two months, then
> the secretary could investigate and figure out what's going on, and
> decide whether to start a new election process or not.
Leaving the decision to the secretary alone is not something I would
like to see in any sort of constitution. (Not that I don't trust the
secretary or anything, but a constitution is exactly the place where you
generally want to be exceedingly paranoid.)
So one might be tempted to generalize what I've proposed by saying that,
any time, a given number of developers (defined on top of Q) can trigger
new elections. But that would in turn be quite a check---an excessive
one IMHO---in the ability of a DPL to guide decisions which have
consensus in the project, but not unanimity, since a relative small
number of developers would be able to scream "we don't want you anymore,
elections!" and most sane minded DPL will probably stop acting before
the end of the brand new elections.
As a way in between, one might imagine having windows for invoking
elections every, say, 6 months.
Mumble mumble ...
Cheers.
PS Sorry for the delay in replying to questions, I'm slowing proceeding
through my backlog, post 1 week of (work) vacation in Taiwan.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature