1 |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> But, you are saying that the council has to approve changes for glep |
3 |
> 39 before they can come to a vote. This would mean that say a majority |
4 |
> of developers doesn't like something in glep 39, but the council |
5 |
> doesn't approve the change. That change will never come to a vote. In |
6 |
> other words, the council has control of the rules that govern it. Is |
7 |
> that what you are intending? |
8 |
> |
9 |
|
10 |
Arguably the current rules are pretty ambiguous for the council. The |
11 |
rules are fairly explicit for the Foundation, where there are rules |
12 |
about having membership-convened meetings/etc. |
13 |
|
14 |
However, maybe we should avoid having a huge debate over this issue. |
15 |
We can't even get a huge percentage of the developer base to vote in |
16 |
an election in the first place. I'm not too concerned about how we'll |
17 |
handle the first organized recall. |
18 |
|
19 |
My recommendation would be to let the council take the leadership on |
20 |
this and organize a vote if necessary. If we start seeing threads |
21 |
with 85 unique developer participants chanting "down with the council" |
22 |
then we can worry about how we bypass them. |
23 |
|
24 |
Rich |