-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/22/2012 10:06 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:06:05 -0800 warren
<warren(a)fedoraos.org>
wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 01/21/2012 09:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:33:08 -0800 warren
>> <warren(a)fedoraos.org> wrote:
>>
>>> why should anyone need to propose it?
>>
>> Because it's a subjective decision... ?
> no one should need to propose anything if
> "$predefined_time_period" for inactivity is defined.
My point is that defining such is difficult and unneeded when
people who feel strongly about inactive people can simply propose
them for removal when they feel they are inactive. If others agree,
they can vote for it.
This avoids people 'gaming the system' by staying just active
enough to be able to continue to vote.
kevin
My point is that "ops" should come with a pre-defined expiry date.
It
shouldn't be "well, you're good enough to get voted in once, now we
need to vote and go through some lengthy process to remove you or make
you behave" i.e. secret FUDCON meeting/letter to Bob.
This would curtail the "gaming the system" greatly, although not
completely avoid it.
Anyone intent on corruption could do so by simply registering another
nick/account and being re-proposed/accepted. Anyone in a position of
power in any organization ultimately has the ability and opportunity
to take advantage and "drive" it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk8cYT8ACgkQI5ZhoGXYrD6uCwCeI5yhKcwW2LtjQeuS9QvV7VAE
6TkAoIG5gVcd9KtfxkiORKMA9a/2QpWo
=zaz2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----