| 1 |
On 07/10/16 13:30, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/07/2016 02:22 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 3 |
>> What if the comrel lead was elected by the council and not by the comrel |
| 4 |
>> members? Comrel is a special case, due to its power to remove |
| 5 |
>> developers, and I think it should therefore be accountable to the global |
| 6 |
>> community, and not just to its own members. |
| 7 |
> If wanting to be consistent with QA lead election process in GLEP 48 |
| 8 |
> council would need to ratify / confirm the lead selection. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'd prefer this over election by council in most cases, as internal |
| 11 |
> worksings within the project isn't easily monitored by outsiders, which |
| 12 |
> can be important in a lead election. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Overall I think something like this is a good idea, but note that if |
| 15 |
> Council disapprove of Comrel behavior, it already has the possibility to |
| 16 |
> remove a lead of any project c.f GLEP 39. I believe it is a good idea |
| 17 |
> for reasons of accountability as the council would, a priori, have a |
| 18 |
> stake in the behavior of a running lead. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
I think this is actually quite a good idea, and reasonably practical to |
| 22 |
implement ... any oppositions? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
MJE |
Archives