[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Craig <jcraig at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>
>> The easy answer is after 10 days a majority can force a vote,
>
> but then you have to tally "votes" to see if "a majority" is asking
> for a vote, before voting :)
> I dont think that is very workable.
>
>> It seems like your concern is over protecting the minority voice.
>
> yup.
>
>>  So,
>> what are the minority rights? Do we have the equivalent of a
>> filibuster?  Should the minority have the right to block progress?
>
> I dont think that filibusters are a good thing.
> On the flip side, I dont think that a majority just ignoring issues
> raised by a minority group, because "hey we've got enough people to
> just ignore them" is a good thing either.
>
> IDEALLY, this sort of thing would be handled by a project secretary,
> who would be fair and impartial to judge whether each side's concerns
> are being properly heard and discussed, before the vote takes place.
>
> Unfortunately, and putting this as respectfully as possible, I'm not
> sure that our current secretary is a good example of impartiality when
> it comes to listening to both sides.
> So we may be better off with some other mechanism.
>
> Also, we need to make sure that the writeup for a vote, is done
> fairly. We've already been through a vote where the writeup was
> unfairly biased towards one side, because only one person wrote it.
> I think it's important that for "issue" type votes, a person from each
> "side", gets to write their  respective side of the ballot writeup.

All the above, including personal judgment, shows that you are so
afraid of losing your little power. All this petty protection of a
minority formed by one person and its possible clique... Not wanting to
make a Reductio ad Hitlerum type of argument I abstain to go further.
-- 
Peter