Any such secondary group would in practice be equally powerful as the PMC, because they would need admin access to execute the auditing and suspension. But because they would not be responsible for day-to-day operations, they wouldn't be active to even spot patterns of abuse.
So it would still be the PMC discovering something that needs to be acted on immediately, and needing to consult another slow and potentially offline party. It just doesn't work in practice. On top of that, it would further complicate elections. I recognize you want the three estates, but it's not practical. -- Tino Didriksen On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 15:49, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not suggesting the Assembly immediately do it. I am suggesting that > at the time of each PMC election, the Assembly elect a separate group that > would handle removals. > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:50 AM Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 18:27, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Again, I believe the PMC should not be involved in removing Committer >>> access, even temporarily. I think a separate elected group should do that. >>> >> >> That simply can't work. If someone is actively abusing their access or >> got hacked, we need to be able to immediately revoke access. Requiring >> asking the Assembly up front is far too slow. >> >> -- Tino Didriksen >> >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
