So, I'm just about ready to say "let's sign this..." > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 04:21:47PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: > > shall represent the > > roject in its official communication with the Conservancy. [Members of > > the Oversight Committee may be added or removed from the Committee at > > any time by a majority vote of the Oversight Committee.] > > Tied => no action?
... > > promptly following the election of a new Representative. The > > Representative will have the authority to instruct the Conservancy on > > the Project's behalf on all matters. [This section may be modified by a > > vote of at least 3/4 of the Oversight Committee, > > Rounding in which direction? So these bits around the corners aren't very clear. Florent has suggested setting the number of members in the Committee to prevent ties. Here's another idea, hopefully a very simple one: how about we just err on the side of conservatism? So tied = no action, and at least 3/4 really means it (no rounding, so 0.74999 means nothing happens). Besides, mandating the committee size doesn't account for abstentions (which we could handle by treating them as equivalent to voting for the status quo). I figure that the Oversight Committee is only really meant as an emergency eject mechanism anyway which makes erring on the conservative side a safe thing to do. Good? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
