Re: Comments on the constitution?
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:17:22AM +0200]:
> (…)
> The main question is: how would people feel about a DPL standing for
> election for a 2 year period, provided that there is an "easy" way to
> call for a mid-term election after 1 year? "Easy" should be defined in a
> way that it is not socially awkward and allow any of the two parts (the
> DPL or the DD body) to call for an election that by default won't
> happen.
>
> At present, I don't have any bright idea on how to implement the "not
> socially awkward" part preserving full transparency. A possibility might
> be to allow a given number of DDs to request in private a mid-term
> election to the secretary. But that clearly trades-off transparency for
> social un-awkward-ness. IMHO it would match the spirit of the current
> Constitution provision that DPL votes are secret, but YMMV. It would
> also possibly increase the level of trust we put in the Secretary.
Humm… An idea could be:
‣ The term is defined to be for one year, with the possibility of one
automatic renewal
‣ If by (election date + 10 months) the DPL sends a (signed,
validated, blah) message, a simple referendum is held: secret vote
between a "yes" and a "no" (and... Further discussion? :-} )
‣ If the DPL seeking renewal gets a majority, his term is prolonged to
a second year
‣ If the DPL does not get a majority, he can still participate in a
regular election
‣ This mechanism can only be used once — A DPL wanting to run a third
term must win a regular (full) election
Reply to: