That way, we don't have to complicate things now. On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 7:44 PM Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another possibility is to allow the Assembly to amend the bylaws without > involving the PMC, so we can handle abuse of power when and if it happens. > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM Xavi Ivars <xavi.iv...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Honestly, this seems like to me overcomplicating things a lot. >> >> It is true that the bylaws need to account for things that may happen, >> but in the 15 years that Apertium has existed as a project, I have never >> seen any abuse of power, and trying to solve for problems that simply don't >> exist I think is even counterproductive. >> >> I wouldn't really focus too much on that. >> -- >> Xavi Ivars >> < http://xavi.ivars.me > >> >> El dc., 29 d’abr. 2020, 18:56, Samuel Sloniker <scoopgra...@gmail.com> >> va escriure: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
