1 |
On 10/07/2016 02:22 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
2 |
> What if the comrel lead was elected by the council and not by the comrel |
3 |
> members? Comrel is a special case, due to its power to remove |
4 |
> developers, and I think it should therefore be accountable to the global |
5 |
> community, and not just to its own members. |
6 |
|
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 |
-- |
22 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
23 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
24 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |