I think (if it matters to anyone what I think) that would be great to see as long as there was some social/cultural incentive to not elect "gatekeeper" types. I see alot of folks with very thin skin misusing the authority they are trusted with in open source communities, it's just never over any of these socially charged reasons that get communities so hyped up so things just get weird for a while when it happens.
-C On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 20:13 -0400, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2021, at 5:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:49 PM Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a > > > disagreement in which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a > > > participant, it is necessary to inquire for what reason this > > > should be done (and, perhaps, who is pushing for it to be > > > done). My suggestion is that this judgment can be made by the > > > community (via secret ballot), unless it is decided to delegate > > > that power to a smaller body, considered as trustees, or whatever > > > you choose to call them. > > > > Personally, I think that voting is unworkable in practice. I think > > decisions can be reasonably delegated to a small group of trusted > > people. A fairly common name for that group is "moderators". It > > might be appropriate to use voting of some sort when selecting > > moderators. > > Yes, that seems reasonable. I think the NetBSD project is an example > of this, where the membership votes for the trustees, and the > trustees are responsible for a number of project aspects including > correcting bad behavior such as we're discussing here. > > The SC was mentioned earlier in this thread, though that's not quite > so natural given how that is appointed. > > paul >
