On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 07:11, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > >On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:13, Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > >>Following from Berin's reuest, I've drafted up a legalistic proposal > >>relating to the ponts abput PMC voting procedures. > > > >do we need that? Why? > > > > Because its less ambiguous. > > Keep in mind that legalistic prose basically the application of SOC on > natural language. A reduction in ambiguity comes at the expense of > having to work harder to read the document.
SoC huh? Cool. Here's a few concerns: concern 1: I would like anyone with a reasonable skill in English to be able to read all relevant documentation without needing to consult a dictionary. concern 2: I want that documentation to make clear the intention contained in them (where I understand the intention of our rules is to roughly maximize on consensus, reaching that consensus in a manner acceptable to all (based on open discussion and community input etc etc), and defaulting to "majority of the meritocracy rules" when consensus is not possible but a resolution is needed) concern 3: it is not possible to make any set of rules or guidelines unambigous without requiring the people who work with them having some kind of college degree in a relevant field (ie law). PMC nor community members should be expected to hold such a degree :D concern 4: I see lots of stuff I am amendable to but that does not also indicate in the text itself the need it addresses. If I can't see it, I won't expect others to do so. do we all share these concerns? I have more thoughts but there not getting translated to readable format very well yet. Posting anyway: Why would there be a distinct role for the chair at all in the pmc process? It seems to me the chair only has a different role wrt to communication (ie with the board) or when things go wrong (and when things go wrong, the chair has a different role because he is also the ASF Officer, _not_ because he is the chair, hence the difference is detailed in ASF bylaws rather than our procedures) Why is it neccessary to set lots of things in stone? Ex: The 72 hours voting period is unofficial (IIUC), a week limit can be as well. I think it will always be possible to challenge the validity of the voting process no matter how tight you hammer it down. The idea is to take away the need to challenge validity. What we need here is guidelines and consensus to the maximum extend possible, and formality to the minimum extend possible. The fact that we failed to get consensus before does not change that. just thoughts.... cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
