Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:45:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > [...] I think the route forward is to GR > > changes to section 8.1, but I'm fairly sure that that will fail if I > > lead it. With any luck, either a DAM or DPL will start the process > > before I do. > > The DAMs already have the authority to make any decisions about someone's > status as a Developer. I don't see any bugs in 8.1 of the constitution; > these are the powers the DAMs *should* have, what needs to be changed?
I think the DAMs should have a more powerful role with a clearer process definition, similar to those of the DPL, tech-ctte and Secretary. That would mostly be consolidation of 8.1.2, a DAM delegation and a NM framework, but I'd like to put up for approval the ideas of a three-strikes disciplinary process, DAMs being appointed by DDs not DPLs (suggested since at least 2001 AFAICT) and a different NM system, as well as the process definition. > If what you want is a different procedure, that doesn't need to be a > constitutional amendment, just propose something and get it accepted by the > DAMs themselves. I feel that would perpetuate undesirable aspects of the current setup. Anyway, this may be different for more well-respected DDs, but IIRC, I've received no reply from DAMs to any emails in years. I don't see how to develop something acceptable with no feedback channel. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker, developer of koha, debian, gobo, gnustep, various mail and web s/w. Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]