Okay. Maybe at least have a group appointed by the PMC and confirmed by the Assembly that at least has the power to interpret the bylaws?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:07 AM Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> wrote: > Any such secondary group would in practice be equally powerful as the PMC, > because they would need admin access to execute the auditing and > suspension. But because they would not be responsible for day-to-day > operations, they wouldn't be active to even spot patterns of abuse. > > So it would still be the PMC discovering something that needs to be acted > on immediately, and needing to consult another slow and potentially offline > party. It just doesn't work in practice. > > On top of that, it would further complicate elections. > > I recognize you want the three estates, but it's not practical. > > -- Tino Didriksen > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 15:49, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am not suggesting the Assembly immediately do it. I am suggesting that >> at the time of each PMC election, the Assembly elect a separate group that >> would handle removals. >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 9:50 AM Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 18:27, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Again, I believe the PMC should not be involved in removing Committer >>>> access, even temporarily. I think a separate elected group should do that. >>>> >>> >>> That simply can't work. If someone is actively abusing their access or >>> got hacked, we need to be able to immediately revoke access. Requiring >>> asking the Assembly up front is far too slow. >>> >>> -- Tino Didriksen >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Apertium-stuff mailing list > Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
