RE: [ros-dev] Constitution

[Casper Hornstrup]

>   -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ge
> van Geldorp
>  Sent: 16. oktober 2005 23:56
>  To: 'ReactOS Development List'
>  Subject: RE: [ros-dev] Constitution
>  
>  Looks good. A few comments:
>  
>  The Registered Project Members can (by General Resolution) override any
>  decision made by the Project Coordinator or the Area Coordinators. However,
>  the Repository Coordinator and Project Secretary can make decisions
>  "preferably consistent with the consensus of the Project Members". It seems
>  to me that Registered Project Members should be able to override their
>  decisions too. 
[CSH] Right. How about changing:
* Override any decision made by the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator. 
* Appoint or dismiss the Project Coordinator or Area Coordinator.

to
* Override any decision made by the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.
* Appoint or dismiss the Project Secretary or any Coordinator.

>   There is a mandatory 1 week discussion period and 1
> week voting period for
>  each vote, with no escape clause. For some votes (whether to release or not
>  comes to mind) 2 weeks seems a bit long. Can we change it so that the
>  proposer can ask for shorter periods, with a safeguard that the shorter
>  periods will be denied if a single Registered Project Member objects? 
[CSH] I thought of having a "quick vote" for decisions which are needed here
and now (like whether or not to release now) and not necessarily need to be
documented anywhere else than the mailing lists for future reference, but how
would you define the two?
Maybe we could allow the Registered Project Member that calls for the vote to
choose any number of days of voting period less than 7 days, but at least 2?
days and no discussion period? Any Registered Project Member already has the
right to demand a revote at any time (maybe there should be some protection
from abuse of that right? One could spam until he/she gets what he/she wants).

>   I really would like Coordinator Elections to be secret
> (or private, not sure
>  what the correct English term is). I should be able to cast my vote without
>  the candidates knowing on who (or even if) I voted. I believe this should be
>  explicitly mentioned in the Coordinator Elections voting procedure.
>  
>  Ge van Geldorp. 
[CSH] We haven't done secret elections before. I could go
either way. If it's
secret then you put a lot of power into one person, the person that collects
the votes (most likely the Project Secretary). What procedure would you suggest?

Casper