* Wouter Verhelst ([email protected]) [081231 21:55]: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:10PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > I still think we should have someone not the DPL (e.g. the secretary) for > > the "first call" on intepretation of the constitution, and then have an > > appeal instance which makes the final decision if necessary. > > ... that could also make sense, I guess. But I'm not so sure it helps: > > Whether we do this kind of thing or not, of course the secretary (or > anyone, really) is going to be interpreting the constitution on a > personal level, thereby assuming that his/her interpretation is correct. > Usually that's not going to be a problem, so we don't need the body. > Only when there's a conflict are people going to invoke that body.
Well, sometimes it boils down to "can we do it that way?", and everyone is happy (enough) with the answer. I don't mind if we do the appeal court in a way that people can go directly to the appeal court in case we expect things to escalate anyways, but I'd like to have a lean way in case we just need an authoritative-enough answer. (And I'd like to see some requirements like "we need Q/2 developers to appeal" to prevent easy stuff to escalate in case only one developer is unhappy.) > > This will keep all the "trivial" cases of the appeal instance. (Which > > doesn't conflict with anything you said.) > > I don't think trivial cases are going to be much of a problem. In any > case, I was thinking of a voting procedure for this body where the few > voters would only be allowed to vote "yes" or "no", plus perhaps a > rationale; we don't need a full condorcet system for interpretation, > methinks (but I have an open mind on that one...) A full condorcet doesn't hurt however, see the tech ctte. (Though we have one bug in case we need qualified majorities, as the constitution doesn't require 1:n, but 1:n+1, which is an issue in small groups - but we should fix that anyways.) Cheers. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
