Re: Comments on the constitution?
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:29:07AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>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
/me shudders at the extra complexity, especially how it would be
worded in the constitution. I'm tempted to say: let's just leave
things the way they are.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
Reply to: