Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the bylaws without involving the PMC, so we can handle abuse of power when and if it happens.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM Xavi Ivars <xavi.iv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Honestly, this seems like to me overcomplicating things a lot. > > It is true that the bylaws need to account for things that may happen, but > in the 15 years that Apertium has existed as a project, I have never seen > any abuse of power, and trying to solve for problems that simply don't > exist I think is even counterproductive. > > I wouldn't really focus too much on that. > -- > Xavi Ivars > < http://xavi.ivars.me > > > El dc., 29 d’abr. 2020, 18:56, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> va > escriure: > >> Okay. Maybe at least have a group appointed by the PMC and confirmed by >> the Assembly that at least has the power to interpret the bylaws? >> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:07 AM Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Apertium-stuff mailing list >> Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff >> > _______________________________________________ > Apertium-stuff mailing list > Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
