Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Am Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 03:41:55PM +0500 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:31:30PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > > When the Technical Committee votes whether to override a Developer who
> > > also happens to be a member of the Committee, that member may not vote
> > > (unless they are the Chair, in which case they may use only their
> > > casting vote).
> >
> > What is the reason for having a special rule for the chair compared to the
> > other members of the TC in case of having to abstain from the vote?
> Only the chair has the casting vote.
Hello,
I am aware that the chair has the casting vote, but making a
special case for the chair nonetheless doesn't seem useful to me.
AFAICS, assuming a tie between the non-chair members of the TC
about overruling the chair, there could only be two possible
scenarios:
- There is an excemption for the chair in the rule about having
to abstain from the vote and the chair makes use of the casting
vote.
In this case the chair surely wouldn't vote to overrule
themselves as that would be a completely nonsensical behaviour,
i.e. the casting vote by the chair would mean that the TC
doesn't overrule the chair.
- There is no special excemption for the chair in the rule about
having to abstain from the vote, so the tie isn't resolved and
as a result the TC doesn't overrule the chair.
In both cases the outcome is the same, so I don't see the reason
for having this special excemption in the constitution.
> Also, this part hasn't changed from the current Constitution text.
That is true, but I already wondered about this point in the
current constitution and as Russ has proposed rewording the
constitution, I would like to understand why he thinks that it
makes sense to keep this special excemption. This is by no means
intended as any form of criticism of Russ' proposal, I would just
like to understand the reasoning behind this special excemption.
> > > 2. Details regarding voting.
> > >
> > > Votes are decided by the voting counting mechanism described in A.6.
> > > The voting period lasts for one week or until the outcome is no longer
> > > in doubt, whichever is shorter. Members may change their votes.
> >
> > How can be determined that the outcome is no longer in doubt before the
> > voting period ends if members can change their vote at any point in time
> > until the end of the voting period?
> This part hasn't changed from the current Constitution text either.
Same as above - IMHO this wording in the current constitution
causes an ambiguity, so I'm trying to understand the reasons to
keep it when we go through the process of trying to remove
ambiguities from the constitution text. There could be good
reasons to keep it, I just would like to understand what those
reasons are.
Regards,
Karsten
--
Hiermit widerspreche ich ausdrücklich der Nutzung sowie der Weitergabe
meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der Werbung sowie der Markt-
oder Meinungsforschung.
Reply to: