Hi Lars,
Lars Noodén schrieb:
OK, my mistake apparently. Though I may ask wtf it is doing in a wiki
then, without even ACLs, and why post the URL, if it is not there to be
changed?
Well - it has been there to be changed for a while. And I brought the
topic sometimeshere to the list. The answers hve gone to the wiki.
That it is still there and not at a protected place) is a mistake - yes.
But the good thing about wikis is, that we hav a history, so the
modifications can be identified. And the modifications can even be used
for future review.
Described that way, the problem is not in the voting, but instead in who
is allowed to vote. That appears to be a similar problem as is found in
a number of ISO committees nowadays since MSFT paid a lot of sockpuppets
to register to participate for a single issue and all subsequent topics
have slammed to a halt due to lack of participation.
Agreed (this is actually some picture I had in mind several times when
sitting at the council).
How about requiring that participants register a proxy if they will be
absent and that a number of absences within a specific time (short or
long) mean end of term.
Oh - this is already defined in the charter. Each Council member has to
name a deputiy, who will stand in in case the member is not available.
But - look at the council pages, how many members have deputies.
indingdeputiesis a little complicated, as the deputies should be fromthe
same group as the council members (means a deputy of a project lead
should be a project lead.) Looking at recent council elections it was
always hard to find candidates in this very limited set of people
(project leads). In most ceses we only had one candidate per seat. So -
no good deputies around.
Also the rule that long term absence may lead to a removal from the
council is already written in the charter. So far this was once used by
the council. the problem with this is, that "absence"is not
well-defined. I've been close to request to remove Louis from the
council, because he failed to attend several council meetings, did not
care about acitivity items ... and has no deputiy to stand in. Would
this have been helpfull? Would it have been in the sense of the
community - I don't know.
Look, rushing this, too, will make a mess. The rules of voting will
more or less determine what behavior is brought forth. Please look at
these rules of order as a form writing scripts or programming. The
intent matters very little. If there is a fatal flaw in the script,
malfeasants *will* find and exploit it.
Allowing abstentions to equal "yes" allows for crap to be flown in under
the radar or during holidays.
Stop - an abstent vote needs to be cast actively - what cannot be done
during holidays. "Absent from voting" is not "casting an abstent vote".
That's different.
So does a "rush" vote. In practice these
get used to avoid scrutiny and evaluation for harmful or at best
unpopular decisions.
Please read the rule about a rush vote again. There is nowhere
mentioned, that a rush vote can be taken without asking all mambers to
vote (or just by considering absent members as voting with absention).
And - a rush vote needs to be reviewd and approved.
The real problem with all this, is (imho) that the council does not need
to report to any entity, if it's following the rules. There is no need
to tweak the rules, if you can just ignore them. I'd really love to have
something like this in the charter but this is something for Version 2.0.
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
