| 1 |
On 03/11/2017 11:23 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> While the Deputy may be assigned, this still gives all power to |
| 3 |
> single hands. Maybe it will be better to establish something like |
| 4 |
> the Security Project Council (SPC)? E.g. three project members may |
| 5 |
> be elected to this SPC, so that all serious decisions will require |
| 6 |
> some team agreement from at least 2 SPC members. This way the |
| 7 |
> Deputy will not be needed as well. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Something like this has been discussed. I personally don't like the |
| 10 |
approach too much given that it adds a certain degree of bureaucracy and |
| 11 |
can remove responsibility. An important part of the GLEP is that the |
| 12 |
project lead is responsible to the council for the changes that is made. |
| 13 |
Having possibility to overrule that by members would mean that the lead |
| 14 |
is not able to control the action, and as such, can't be responsible for |
| 15 |
it. If the members disagree with the lead they can call for re-election |
| 16 |
as per GLEP:39 already. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As discussed in another sub-thread, however, will try to incorporate |
| 19 |
more of the procedure in the vulnerability treatment policy etc into the |
| 20 |
GLEP such that procedures are more in focus. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 24 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 25 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives