On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm uncomfortable with the two places where the bylaws talk about requiring unanimous votes. Both talk about the extremely rare case of removing a committer and/or PMC member. Particularly in the case of a rogue committer, swift action may be required.
Would this become any better if we used any arbitrary majority number like 3/4 or 2/3? I don't think so.
No.
From a board perspective, the chair of the PMC is held accountable to such decisions.
Exactly.
Even if the bylaws don't spell this out, the chair would be able to act quickly on his/her own. Do you think we need to clarify the "superhuman powers" of the chair?
Not necessarily. What concerns me is the explicit spelling out of bylaws that appear to define a process that not only is never expected to be executed, but would be counter productive if attempted.
- Sam Ruby
P.S. With or without any changes related to this comment, you have my +1 to proceed with these bylaws. Bylaws can always be amended.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
