[Foundation] a simple reform

[Matthew A. Miller]

Well, there's many ways to safeguard from such troubles, such as "allow
the Council to censure it's own members, but only after <insert large
enough group/quorum here> calls for such action."  But then, this makes
things more complicated.

Another idea that might be worth considering: Since the
"dead-weightness" of a Council member is in their lack of votes, we
could institute and *ENFORCE* a time-limit on voting, with any council
members that haven't met the deadline having a "0" tagged for that vote.

*IF* the JEP Editor were willing to share in the power, I'd be happy to
help keep track of such time limits... (-: 


-  LW

On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 09:00, Russell Davis wrote:
> a self policing council would be ok at this time however in the future
> when we arn't all nice and friendly cuddily bunnies it can get quite
> nasty when you grant councils and boards the ability to weed and cull.
> 
> i've seen some very nasty fights in the past especially on councils and
> boards made up of smaller numbers and i don't think i could watch
> another.
> 
> Russell
> 
> On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 11:35, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> > I believe *some* is the operative word here.  Specifically, those that 
> > seem most in need of treatment for CADD[1] (Council Attention Deficiency 
> > Disorder) are (in the order that I've seen, YMMV):
> > DJ Adams
> > Jeremie Miller (no relation)
> > Julian Missig / Joe Hildebrand
> > 
> > Maybe it would be better to grant the council a "censure" over its own 
> > membership, so that those that don't respond in a reasonable amount of 
> > time be replaced/removed on an interim schedule.
> > 
> > A possible problem I can forsee with a six month term is that many of 
> > our most actively discussed Standards-Track JEPs have taken that long to 
> > go from EXPERIMENTAL to DRAFT.  Since a JEP now needs sponsorship and 
> > tentative buy-in by at least *one* council memeber to move forward, it 
> > would seem more prudent to allow the Council to weed itself on an 
> > interim basis.
> > 
> > Just a thought... (-:
> > 
> > 
> > -  LW
> > 
> > [1]  Nothing personal guys, so I hope you won't lynch me for that (-: 
> > It's what I've noticed as far as voting schedules go.
> > 
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 11:11:04AM -0400, Russell Davis wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>if we did go forward with this and i can't see why not as it's seems
> > >>reasonable then i'd like to also add a proposal to it that council sits
> > >>for 6 months rather than a full year -- board can stay at the year as if
> > >>i remember correctly board members don't need to be JSF members and the
> > >>business world works in yearly cycles anyway.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Heh, well, 6 months seems to be about the maximum attention span for
> > > some Council members. ;)
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
-- 

Matt "linuxwolf" Miller
JID:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net
E-MAIL:	linuxwolf at outer-planes.net

- Got "JABBER"? (http://www.jabber.org/)