I have to ask, what kind of abuse of power do you have in mind? On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:15 AM Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That way, we don't have to complicate things now. > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:44 PM Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 > -- *Khanna, Tanmai*
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
