Oh, okay, Regarding amendments, it appears that there is no process for
amending the bylaws. Would it just be a normal PMC decision with the
approval of the Assembly?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:18 PM Tino Didriksen
wrote:
> Replied inline...
>
> On Fri, 1 May 2020, Samuel Sloniker wrote:
>
>>
Replied inline...
On Fri, 1 May 2020, Samuel Sloniker wrote:
> Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the bylaws without
> involving the PMC, so we can handle abuse of power when and if it happens.
The Assembly can effectively already do that. As I've mentioned several
times
Also, can we remove the need for PMC sponsorship for getting voting rights?
IMO, just contributing should be enough.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:07 PM Samuel Sloniker
wrote:
> Basically, the PMC can do almost anything, therefore, they could remove
> committers for no good reason, abuse the Web
Basically, the PMC can do almost anything, therefore, they could remove
committers for no good reason, abuse the Web space, etc.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:03 PM Tanmai Khanna
wrote:
> I have to ask, what kind of abuse of power do you have in mind?
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:15 AM Samuel
I have to ask, what kind of abuse of power do you have in mind?
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:15 AM Samuel Sloniker
wrote:
> That way, we don't have to complicate things now.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:44 PM Samuel Sloniker
> wrote:
>
>> Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the
Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the bylaws without
involving the PMC, so we can handle abuse of power when and if it happens.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM Xavi Ivars wrote:
> Honestly, this seems like to me overcomplicating things a lot.
>
> It is true that the bylaws
That way, we don't have to complicate things now.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:44 PM Samuel Sloniker
wrote:
> Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the bylaws without
> involving the PMC, so we can handle abuse of power when and if it happens.
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Honestly, this seems like to me overcomplicating things a lot.
It is true that the bylaws need to account for things that may happen, but
in the 15 years that Apertium has existed as a project, I have never seen
any abuse of power, and trying to solve for problems that simply don't
exist I think
If the main issue is an abuse of power and having adequate checks and
balances, doesn't the assembly of committers hold the power to overturn PMC
decisions? Which would include removals I guess.
Tanmai
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:26 PM Samuel Sloniker
wrote:
> Okay. Maybe at least have a group
Okay. Maybe at least have a group appointed by the PMC and confirmed by the
Assembly that at least has the power to interpret the bylaws?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:07 AM Tino Didriksen
wrote:
> Any such secondary group would in practice be equally powerful as the PMC,
> because they would need
Any such secondary group would in practice be equally powerful as the PMC,
because they would need admin access to execute the auditing and
suspension. But because they would not be responsible for day-to-day
operations, they wouldn't be active to even spot patterns of abuse.
So it would still be
I am not suggesting the Assembly immediately do it. I am suggesting that at
the time of each PMC election, the Assembly elect a separate group that
would handle removals.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:50 AM Tino Didriksen
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 18:27, Samuel Sloniker
> wrote:
>
>> Again,
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 18:27, Samuel Sloniker wrote:
> Again, I believe the PMC should not be involved in removing Committer
> access, even temporarily. I think a separate elected group should do that.
>
That simply can't work. If someone is actively abusing their access or got
hacked, we need
Again, I believe the PMC should not be involved in removing Committer
access, even temporarily. I think a separate elected group should do that.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:45 PM Tino Didriksen
wrote:
> It's been a week since last comment on the PR. Everyone is happy with how
> the new Bylaws
It's been a week since last comment on the PR. Everyone is happy with how
the new Bylaws look now?
If you haven't already, please take the time to read through the current
wording and comments.
-- Tino Didriksen
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 22:14, Tino Didriksen wrote:
> I'm proposing overhauling
If you don't like the diff that GitHub offers, you can clone the repos and
use whatever diff tool you prefer. The git executable itself has several
diff modes too, including a word diff (which sounds like what you're
after?).
--
Jonathan
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020, 01:14 Tino Didriksen wrote:
> On
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 01:10, Bernard Chardonneau
wrote:
> Good idea to put a diff file but highlighting differences should be done
> everywhere. There are long paragraphs on which it is very difficult to
> see changes.
> Or an alternative possibility could be to put one pink line followed by
>
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:14:35 +0200
> From: Tino Didriksen
> To: "[apertium-stuff]"
> Reply-To: apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Apertium-stuff] Bylaws Overhaul Proposal
> Pièce(s) jointes(s) probable(s)>
> I'm proposing overhauling the Ape
Oh I missed what you quoted. I thought you were referring to the court idea.
Now that I understand the Secretary, I'm fine with #1.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 09:39 Jonathan Washington <
jonathan.n.washing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that the Secretary doesn't have much power—mostly
My understanding is that the Secretary doesn't have much power—mostly just
responsibility. Or, what power are you talking about?
--
Jonathan
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:36 Samuel Sloniker wrote:
> I just don't like giving one group too much power. Maybe I've spent too
> much time studying the US
I just don't like giving one group too much power. Maybe I've spent too
much time studying the US Constitution.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 08:56 Jonathan Washington <
jonathan.n.washing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 17:57 Samuel Sloniker wrote:
>
>> 1. I oppose allowing the
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 17:57 Samuel Sloniker wrote:
> 1. I oppose allowing the Secretary and Treasurer to be the same person.
>
What's your reasoning for this?
--
Jonathan
2. Using additional criteria for tiebreaking could easily turn into a
> rigged election.
> 3. I believe there should be a
1. I oppose allowing the Secretary and Treasurer to be the same person.
2. Using additional criteria for tiebreaking could easily turn into a
rigged election.
3. I believe there should be a court of some sort for handling violations.
See the Bylaw Violation Court in
I'm proposing overhauling the Apertium Bylaws, and after some fixes and
refinements by the PMC, it's time to get everyone's input.
PR with comments: https://github.com/apertium/organisation/pull/13
Current bylaws: http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Bylaws
Proposed bylaws:
24 matches
Mail list logo
