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

Re: Question for Stefano: Length of the DPL term

On la, 2011-03-26 at 18:30 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.)

I agree that the constitution should be paranoid. That's why I would not
let the secretary decide to start an election all by themselves.
Instead, there would be an objective trigger ("no gpg-signed e-mail from
the leader on any Debian mailing list in the past 60 days"), with the
role of the secretary being to act as a safeguard that postpones the
start of the election if there's a reason to do so.

This would be similar to the current situation, where we have an
objective trigger ("1 year since the current DPL's term started") for
the secretary to start an election.

In both cases, if the secretary is failing, then the develpers at large
can step up and raise the issue.

Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):

Reply to: