Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably
> > > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much.
> >
> > How about:
>
> I don't think this is a problem that is worth solving with extra
> complexity in the text of the Constitution.
>
> If a tie ever happens, I think we can count on the responsibility of the
> involved CTTE members to agree between them on who should step down; and
> possibly on the fact that they will all resign.
I would hope that to be possible, too, yes, but I wouldn't gamble the
stability of one of our most core institutions on having to change the
constitution to fix an issue when people are fighting over it on the
street...
> But I bite. I don't think it is a good idea to tie the tie breaking rule
> to specific technology (the email message used for the appointment, IDs
> in the Debian user database, etc).
>
> If people really want to add a tie breaking rule, the most
> straightforward one is specifying that *the DPL* will break any tie.
That's probably the best option. It would also seriously reduce the
amount of extra complexity for a tie breaking rule.
I would feel more comfortable if it were explicitly mentioned, though.
If a problem ever occurred due to this, technically the DPL could claim
"urgent action" and do it under 5.1.3, but I would find that reasoning
strained.
After all, the constitution gives the DPL the power to *assign* someone
to the committee, but not to remove someone; that is far from the same
thing.
--
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer
-- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
Reply to: