Anthony Towns wrote: >On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:11:02PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: >> Changes for the current draft: >> > + In case the DPL and ex-secretary can't agree on an candidate for new >> > secretary, the decision is made by the developers in a GR, and not by >> > the SPI board. >> Would this GR be conducted by the outgoing secretary? If the reason for >> the disagreement is that the secretary has lost the confidence of a >> significant number of developers, that rule could make a bad situation >> worse.
> The DPL can authorise other developers to check the secretary's work -- > this has happened in the past after, iirc, the 2002 DPL election. For > public votes, all the data can be published after the fact, rendering > the secretary powerless to influence the outcome at all. It might not be so simple, if for example the dispute was over who was eligible to vote. > So even if that did happen (which I don't think's likely), I think the > project could work around it satisfactorily anyway. I'm sure Debian would muddle through. On the other hand, one of the purposes of a written constitution is to be as helpful as possible in just such 'crises'. Anyway, you've understood what my point was; I won't argue for the sake of arguing. -M- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
