 Good It's just really moving At least when I issued this name social committee because there was a question from Sven Luto to us the technical committee or for some decision but it was not the duty of the technical committee and so there was something missing There was the incident where this social committee name was first issued so I don't know the name but the problem is we need something that solves this issue because we have much more social issues than technical issues I have a kind of argument that I think will get us to explain why we're here We have demonstrated that we don't have a mechanism really short of expulsion that all works for dealing with people who are behaving permanently or temporarily in some really bad way and just being destructive and nearly everybody else has some kind of mechanism If you think that there should be some kind of mechanism really this means that somebody is going to have to make a decision about what kind of behavior is acceptable or not acceptable We don't currently have anybody who is willing to make that decision the DPL technically can but typically the DPL does not want to and now you think well ok so we're going to invent we really have to invent some new role we don't want to overload any of the existing people probably and if you have just one person then there's a kind of social-dynamic problem because these are all social problems and the people involved in such a dispute are already angry and not thinking clearly and talking past each other and having some kind of dictator, one person dictator who's just appointed in some really bad way is not going to solve the problem I think in fact that's why the DPL is perhaps a simple and obvious answer as some people might like it to be Account managers are only two so we just split the responsibility but it's still concentrated so it's not a solution So this leads us to the idea that there should be several people and well mostly we call these kind of things teams or committees and given that its main purpose is making decisions rather than actually doing things that's possibly why you won't call it a committee but that doesn't really answer any of the other important questions now I made a list of the questions that we need to answer in this BOF and there's really four questions what should this committee be allowed to decide what should its powers be how should it be appointed or elected or who should be on it how internally should it work or maybe who should decide how it should work and finally supposing somebody disagrees with it what will be the route for appeal and we can expect that this appeal mechanism will be used if you look at the ITF processes for the same kind of problem all of the most disruptive people who cause the most trouble all pretty much always end up appealing every decision against them to the IASG and eventually to the IAD now we, unlike the ITF are able to actually expel somebody who's just being such a useless person one point and that's earlier that you're continuing on Andy Bart's idea well we had maybe two or three discussions about governance while a social committee would be a method of governance in a general sense it wouldn't actually solve all the governance problems nor should it attempt to this would be just the way of there are two kinds of there's non-technical issues the amorphous mass of non-technical issues and one major clause of those issues is related to management and one is to just getting the law the social committee should help to alleviate the problems of getting the law so that it can leave more time for people to get into maybe other non-technical issues it shouldn't resolve all issues it should just deal with this little niche a large niche so I completely agree and Andy's governance stuff though I was not able to be a recession this week I've had conversations before and clearly this is part of this continuing thread of evolving ideas about how the project should run itself as we continue to increase in scale back at least as far as the talk I did in Helsinki at the con three so I completely agree with you I think what we're trying to focus on right now is a much narrower case than the completely generalized let's solve the whole governance thing forever which is the very specific case of and look you know we've had some interesting discussion among various subgroups of people this week about post-mortems on recent human interaction issues that have come before the project and I think the thing that's become increasingly clear is that there does need to be some reasonably well-defined sequence of events that one of these situations can go through that has some intermediate revolution step potential before you get to the bending of the list that's coming from the project kind of stage and in fact I would suggest that part of the operating behaviors the powers that such a community should have to kick off that part of the thinking discussion would be to act as the gating function for deciding when it's time for a postmaster to engage in some kind of a list-bending action or to be the principal method by which a recommendation goes to our dams that this is now a situation that is worthy of consideration for expulsion and so those are the kinds of decisions that people in process-oriented roles like managing middle-end list service don't want to and really shouldn't be expected to make and yet somebody has to make to provide them guidance about when to take action and one thing, the mere existence of such a body, such an instance will serve to de-escalate problems because people will be a certain percentage of people will be disinclined to make problems because there's no longer the open field of abuse that they can engage on there will be an option right now we have the DPL but obviously the option hasn't been used in 10 years so it's not worth it I think it's also an awful DPL to make some facetious decisions you need something to... well let's be clear we have, once in our not too far distant history exercised an expulsion process where it was a coalescence of opinion of the DPL and the ad hoc team at that time that actually needed to be taken and that was about a year ago which one is it? NZDM team at the last dotcom and it was in fact an ad hoc it was an ad hoc social community if you will in the sense that because they were all in the same place it was pretty easy to put the DPL, the dams various other people all together in a room and have a conversation that led to a decision the same problem persists throughout the year so maybe there was a... different individual, different circumstances but yes, my point was simply it's not that... no with that person with that person we have problems on the online forums Yeah, the point I'm making is simply you said that it's never been exercised Oh right it was difficult, it was unusual and obviously it doesn't stay on I think the problem is that it is very hard to make sure that the person who is attacked by the DPL says you don't like the colour of my hair and that's why you are explaining it and we have to make sure that not the person, the conflict between two persons but that there's somebody behind to the place the two DPLs gives advice of So let's get back to Ian's first point which was power So you proposed the explicit power of recommending bending from lists What I'd actually said was was the power of making all access control but having thought about it it's not entirely clear that's correct So if you look at that power that power would have included the power that the developers exercised with the the upload the recent GR about upload rights would be that was an access control decision and my wording that I proposed would have covered that in consequence so I'm not sure do we in fact want it also to cover would we want it to have the power the reason I put it like that was because the original test case was Sven who wanted access to CVS or SVM and that also is a similar kind of How do we separate the technical method from the social method in such a case Whether or not you grant somebody access is that's a political question not a technical question I think but in the process of asking that question there is an interesting point and that is that you have to make sure that whatever powers and processes and escalation procedures are defined for and ascribed to this potential committee have to fit well with the rest of our constitutional structure and other organizations and what their powers and escalation processes are so we just need to make sure that we don't create something that's going to be its own source of internal conflict I think we don't want to overlaps for the technical committee too much so people don't talk to both I think this is not political as I pointed out at least in the minds of many it was a fairly crisp delineation between whether something is technical or not there's some mechanism for there to be a conversation when we're getting close to those boundary conditions on this problem I actually specified in my constitutional amendment proposal that the social committee as soon as all the members of the committee can't agree whether an issue is social or technical it differs to the technical committee I mean this is the junior committee this would be the junior committee so maybe it's best that it differs if there is a disagreement if a political decision is more technical than social this also leaves out the possibility that the technical committee might be a useful appeal body not if you structure it like that then one of the problems that we've had with recent attempts to use the technical committee to solve social problems is that you end up with an argument that somebody you know we actually had somebody claim and not spend that an access control decision in a repository was a technical decision because it was implemented using technical means I'd like to make a concrete suggestion and that is that we don't think of a social committee as being subordinate to the technical committee that we instead think of it as being parallel to the technical committee that the questions of which committee should be reviewing the deciding of the decision that we looked at the DPL who would make that decision and I would think that the DPL or the developers through GR would be the obvious path for escalation in the same way as through the technical committee developers by means of GR can choose to allow the technical committee to sound that was the way I originally imagined it but one of the things that we're constantly arguing about specifically on the technical committee list is what does technical mean and whether something it's really unhelpful you end up having an enormous conversation about jurisdiction you don't reach the need to the matter at all this is why I think it would actually be helpful to have jurisdiction be something that lies in the hands of a single elected representative because then they would ask what they think they'll decide should the social committee or the technical committee make the decision on this seems reasonable enough and unlikely to cause any endurance and strife and at the same time it's not asking that one individual to make the decision exactly it's in fact they get to make the meta decision about where they should go and then I think either committee one would hope that that wouldn't go wrong too often the technical committees could discuss it themselves but it seems to me that a straightforward solution would be if there's any question about which committee should handle it the DPL could designate one of the committees as the appropriate way in the case of social difficulties as soon as you find as soon as somebody notices that the committee is currently dealing with their problem isn't liking the answer they're getting the way it will work is somebody will approach one of the two committees with some grievance argument backwards and forwards and eventually we come clear that the committee is leading towards one side or whatever mechanisms it has is we'll be coming up with one side because of the wrong answer and usually that will be against the more dysfunctional person just by general reasons and that person will then immediately start to question the jurisdiction and say well now this is getting more like another matter I think that's true but my sense of info is if either committees thought they were being handed something I think once a committee begins to deliberate on something it would seem unlikely to me that either committee would think the right answer was to switch the committee as dealing with the problem and so while I understand the behavior that you're describing I don't personally feel the need to sort of have a complex mechanism for dealing with it because I think you have to write down very clearly something that would rule out this kind of forum change at that stage I mean the worst case scenario in my mind is that you end up doing that sort of foot blocking a much better case that's easily handled with language is if you don't like the judgment of the committee that's reviewing the case then it's your time can I make a suggestion along in this context it might be worthwhile asking the parties dispute which committee they each thought this ought to be dealt with and if they agree then it's easy and then they don't later come back and say because now they've brought into it and if they don't agree then the DPL will decide possibly with consultation with the committee what will actually happen is the committees will all say the same thing to the DPL and the DPL will decide that no all says but it's your time not us I reckon it's more appropriate than the other committee that's what he gets to do as elected if you get to be on both committees you're not allowed to say that another corner case is what did the DPL decides to ask one committee for the ruling and then doesn't like it and ask the other committee but the rules would say the rules would say we have the people of that so they are not delegates they can be the DPL they may not be the DPL we haven't decided yet it certainly has been in my mind that the structure we wanted was one where the DPL would have the ability to help resolve questions of jurisdiction and might perhaps be one of the avenues for escalation though frankly I think an escalation path it doesn't put this back in the hands of a single individual smarter than the state an escalation path that says once this has gone to a committee or a course singular that seems to me like a completely reasonable thing we really are talking about processes while Ian's quite correct these processes and their escalation paths will be exercised we certainly hope that this committee is not normal operating mode I think hope that this is the thing that helps to temper and provide some context to the interpersonal relationships and behaviours I actually didn't specify the escalation path if someone disagrees with the committee for jurisdiction I did in the proposal I said okay go to the DPL committee but for content issues after it decided there's no additional specification just as okay it can be overwritten by GR in general so I think we agree on that so another question that we might ask ourselves is we frame this between two sides but sometimes you find that people are behaving badly and that people maybe they're not behaving badly towards anybody in particular but they're just behaving badly and unlike the technical committee the social committee needs to be able to when it becomes aware of such a thing well firstly somebody on the social committee needs to go and have a quiet work at the end of the day if that doesn't work so the social committee needs to be more proactive rather than wait for somebody to bring an issue they actually need to be monitoring in the US system that would be sort of the role I could suit so bad at one way to think about it is to say that that effectively the person on the social committee who first had the quiet work will end up being we think obviously like a complainant excluded from the committee excluded from from the from the voting or whatever at the same time this conflict is the idea that we don't want it to be a restrictive body no design work it's a little bit in a conflict so if you allow it to go after cases go after problematic cases and it becomes like a body that can run a mall you know I was thinking about this a little while ago after Sam's question or assertion about the delegation status of this and it strikes me that what we may actually be after here are two kinds of behaviors that might all be embodied by one body but it might actually be that we want to think we might want a in fact a delegated social team which is the proactive you know trying to deal with people and drive behaviors that are appropriate and then we might want something more like the current constitutional structure of the technical committee that isn't specifically subordinate to the DPL though the DPL would perhaps in the same kind of way be involved in helping to manage the constituents of the committee I don't know but I have this notion that perhaps there's the sort of proactive way to oil the machine in the right places I think it's important that there's the resolution I think it's important that those things be essentially the same body because there's a number of reasons one of the reasons is that just dealing with with nut cases is going to be a really thankless task whereas giving those people on the social committee a quiet word with people who are just a bit stressed out at the moment that's a much more positive role and actually if somebody has a quiet word with you most people will appreciate that later and say thank you very much and the other reason is that a bunch of people who can have a quiet word but don't carry a big stick it's really the dynamics of the situation are very different what we're trying to do here is we're trying to make some parent figures who can give you a detention or a teacher or somebody I don't think we have a danger of this big running amok because there's I think we have a danger of people voting against it because they think it will run amok let's say fair universe in the end there's a lot of people who are just energetic and afraid of how do you say so let me correct the thought there I don't think there's a lot of people like that do we think that they can harm the process I don't think we've ever seen a problem when something, for example, has come to a GR with a totally unexpected irrational behavior result because I think we do have changes that was the that was the question of people really not understanding the situation honestly it's almost a good thing to have in our history because I don't think anyone will ever not pay attention to a GR again although I shouldn't be too optimistic I did argue a different case against that but I think I delved into that I understand so what is the solution? so we could write some well the question is ultimately if the total committee makes some decision the end result of this decision is going to be in most cases is going to be if it actually needs to act most of the time we hope it won't or an IRC ban or an interjection it will be a descriptive opinion on what we've done as for documentation about what it can decide why is it deciding anything I think that's a paramount it has to explain itself to the developers obviously there'll be an explanation but the question is we're talking about powers now obviously any committee has the power to work that's a power that's a power in the social world but and it could actually have an effect it could have an effect so merely a recommendation so merely a recommendation from the social committee for somebody else to take some action may well be he did but if we would like that to be he did even just writing down explicitly that we expected to make certain kinds of recommendations would be very helpful but do we want it to have the ability to decide or merely to recommend maybe that's a big thing I think to be honest it's got to be decided because at the moment we've got several groups who don't want to be decided I think we have potentially a couple of kinds of cases one is in the case of something like a mailing list ban I think it should be decided because we have a very clear initiation from the people who are providing process support by being things like listmasters that they don't want to make decisions or things like this and this is one of the roles that I think we're going to see by the system of life it's just the same I think that's quite true actually the drug system is a little different and we did ban two people at one point like not at all I'm not going to be on today I mean under the car already that whether it's a drug Fini Biscuitio I think in the case of BTS what's abused and what's not what's abused and what's not because there is a technical aspect to what's going on there that makes it a little crisper sometimes I think there's the other case where in the case of an expulsion I think there needs to be some thought put into whether this is a recommendation or a decision I think the sense that I've had from recent conversations was that the committee recommending to the dams that it is now time for you to make a decision about expulsion was a good way to put this because we do have a pretty well defined the dams of the final stock decision when it actually got so bad that we had to expel somebody that actually worked and that was pretty okay so it was an unpleasant flame war but really you're just not going to be able to expel somebody that unpleasant flame war the sense that I had was that what our current dam would appreciate was a committee that in fact told them when it was time for them to start paying attention or apply more enough to make a decision as opposed to just ignoring it the current thing is really pathological but it leads to these kind of trollage please can I collect my cue now post-it I hate you I'm going to try to expel you yeah it would be graphic but yeah and really this is also a big difference right if we think about public and private an awful lot of the work that the social committee will have to be done in private because a lot of it is to do with face and you can you can even tell somebody to stop doing something and they can either choose to make an issue of it and tell everybody because they think you're being an asshole or they can just say well like that and providing nobody has to know about it I think we had an interesting conversation earlier this week about the fact that in the modern world things that end up on the public mail and lists end up in search engines end up being things that employers look at and so forth and while we've been addictive among us may appreciate the notion that you'll never be horrible ever again because you were such a smart guy and at the same time there is a growing body of legal opinion that's in various jurisdictions around the world that says that you know, due process need to be applied on things that may end up having lasting impact and so I have this general notion that an ability to do at least the first round or two of this kind of interaction without leaving sort of a stain on your permanent record is a useful thing for us to have within the project and I think it's equally clear that when things escalate to a certain point it is absolutely essential that the switch flips and we've got a nice, crisply, publicly documented sequence of events so if there's no real question later about whether this was personality or the uniqueness of whatever it is and it was very clear this is our process, these new steps we just took over the final gate so the formal decisions are taken in public is that what they say and the informal stuff is done in private although we should make a rule that if a social committee member mails somebody some advice about their behaviour then that email is one what we do is we say that the recipient of such an email may publish it without the consent of the committee member and that way it should be BCC for the Central Archive I think it shouldn't because what will happen is you want to be able to tell somebody off and if they agree with being told off of having slept on it then you don't want a permanent record of that anywhere, you don't want privileged people coming in and possibly but if you don't want the entire committee then that way you can start all the stuff from the position there should be hold on there is this assertion that having a private word with somebody would exclude you from being able to have a judgment later in the process I actually disagree with that because I would suspect that almost if not everyone who is involved in making our recent expulsion had at some point had some kind of interaction and tried to help make things happen so I think we have a problem or we're building a problem for ourselves if we're too pedantic about the notion that you've ever tried to have a private word with somebody and now you have to refuse yourself from future interactions involved in a person that just seems unworkable, unscalable and undesirable to me I understand this notion that if in effect we build a mechanism where the only way we can make a decision is we have to have two combatants duking it out and somebody makes a decision between them and you're expecting the person who first had the quiet word with them to take on that role that it would be inappropriate for them to be in that role and simultaneously but in recent history the cases I can recall have really been individual against the project even if one or more of the parties involved chose to try and articulate it as this person against that person and even if there were points of heat that were between this person and one or two or three were attacked than others people I don't think we expel people from the project for having one-to-one relationship issues but in our case we expel them from the project if their behavior is so detrimental to the project as a whole that we can't incorporate their presence and so there's something here where I want to make sure there's a question of jurisdictional the place where that really came in was trying to get agreement jurisdictional agreement and if you have a quiet word with somebody and then later you have to e-mail them and get their commission to beat them over the hip with a big stick what are they going to say no they're going to beat them over the hip with a big stick can I just introduce you to have someone shoot quite the police we've been having it made by default and since the only other thing that the person can say is no actually the technical committee should deal with this then if they do that the first thing the technical committee will do is say we delegate these decisions to the social committee so that's why I think the best structures what's not possible is to go side by side I think my first thought is to have them be in parallel and use the DPL as the jurisdictional decision point when necessary I thought your idea about the other possibility is if we actually say explicitly what the powers of the social committee are in terms of for example maybe this ban for that kind of thing then it's obvious that the technical committee doesn't have those powers at all and that means that we don't need to worry when the social committee decides something that somebody is going to argue the technical committee should have decided it or vice versa because the technical committee decides on the contents of a package and the social committee decides on the main list filters there's the way out of this for example if we've got to dispute between two people over the use of a public resource for example those cases welcome but that's where we end we let the DPL went to George I was trying at one point to have this be content versus access and to go back to your thought earlier when we're talking about commit access for repository I'd expect the social committee to worry about who has commit access and the technical committee to be worrying about what got committed and that's another one of those I'm sure we can come up with some corner case where you have to think about this differently so trying in my own mind to find useful practical boundaries that's the kind of way I've been thinking about it just a matter of whether we can get the community running without worrying too much about these corner cases will the people accept it and then we can move, pick things as we go along so far nearly all the powers that we're talking about are powers that the DPL already has I don't think anybody is suggesting giving this committee some power that technically the DPL already doesn't have one that just the DPL fails to exercise so this could be that means we suggest that this should be done with the DPL delegation and hopefully the constitution means that the DPL still isn't an appeal route for an individual decision so we don't need to cover that case that's an interesting point and that is really helpful because it means that we don't have to get it right first time that's correct we can write up some DPL can through delegation and fix things if necessary and the committee itself will be able to just informally have a word with the DPL and say please change this and if the committee says please change this DPL and do it probably and my suspicion is that that allows us to get to something working sooner because we don't have to go through the constitution and the DPL process I agree with that it's important to understand that a large part of our DPL discussion every year turn around this problem of social internal stuff and it makes sense to DPL be able to change their direction that the social community has been taking because it is the larger you world one thing that came to my mind later after I've written the constitutional amendment maybe we can let me explain my basis because the idea is that we get more people elected because it's a major process decision you know it involves having a couple new procedure and perhaps a minor but still some constitutional amendment I think it's a good idea all the developers vote for it but they don't have to vote for a constitutional amendment they can vote for a GR which is a position statement so the committee could be founded by a position statement is that a bible does anyone know it is I think it's just if we're going to elect these people it doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense to have two votes we should either vote to establish this committee and the DPL will just decide who they are or we should have the DPL set it up and then we'll run an election all right it's not a requirement that votes only have an constitutional amendment actually in fact use our GR process for the constitution would it be useful to have a GR of the general developer body to actually set up a social committee so we can get real by it and show the majority of people want this so the answer is that's one way that you can do it and yes it does help fairly quickly to establish a sense of the project on things like this I think the point that Rob Hill's making is equally valid that if these aren't in fact all powers that are described to the DPL anyway and if we already go through a large discussion each year around social communications and behavioral issues as part of our DPL election process I think Sam could equally, straightforwardly choose to announce that one of the things he's pleased to be able to do is DPL with an ending that he got by being elected he was able to institute this community within a few months less than a year certainly for there to be a fact they support of or a revocation of that in the process of whether who gets elected as DPL next year and what their platform did or didn't say what positions they take and all of this to their home so I think it's a question of what's important in this process and it's important to have that sense of the project. At one point, you're interpreting from a historical standpoint all these powers are the same from the DPL's powers you said that, they are basically not The Constitution The Constitution isn't necessarily our moral vertical I don't know how to say that in English isn't necessarily right in that matter I think it's more a fear in a general sense that the developers simply decide to buy a general resolution vote which is a constitutional tool but it's a generic tool just by democratically What you're effect saying is you think this process would have a stronger sense of a mandate and perhaps be more likely to succeed if it was launched through a GR process so if you only hold an election to appoint the people then the refused mix are going to find it it's not going to be a way for them to express that properly so we can ask Manoj to put the two things on the same ballot and vote on them at the same time Manoj says he can't do them he can't do them at the same time he can't do them at the same time that's just as good it doesn't have to be the same e-mail it just has to be simultaneous the point is we don't want to run one after the other because that just we've collected this but we don't want it we've selected this slogan but we want it the other way around what's the difference between having this and having none of you vote for me none of the above means the people who don't beat none of the above don't get elected but the people who did beat none of the above didn't give me a chance before you reach the quote and also the social competition is a good idea but whatever we need we need five people in there but I always think two candidates are good a zaza clap one thing is problem if we have a lot of votes both for the establishment and for the composition of the committee the problem is that the nomination period for this non-existent social committee that's absolutely fine because the decision by the DPL to do this could just say please don't because of the DPL with powers you don't have a DPL just to do it anyway the other the other advances of doing it like that that the decision to establish what happened, the way you work it is the DPL says I hereby plan to establish this social committee and there will be elections and so forth please run an election and furthermore I also propose to a overall high-end decision and here is the thing to say we will not have a social committee or something like that or some equivalent thing or here's my approval and he just says I won't do it if you don't like it and the technicalities of it don't really matter and everybody knows that what is probably going to happen is people will vote yes and elect some people but maybe people will vote no and then the election is moved and that would be alright, everybody wouldn't really mind that very much we should cash this out with the knowledge because he's the secretary it's still on the list on the project list or on the vote list I asked about whether the two votes are possible at the same time so is this right we want it to be approved by the project but the committee would still be delegating no formally the committee would have to be delegated that is the committee would be established by a delegation decision from the DPL and that's important because it enables the DPL to change the delegation and we explicitly want to write in and say the DPL is expected to see how it works and the committee was expected to write its own rules and all this kind of stuff because we don't know to have a huge GR every time that was the next question that was the next question I think it's a bad idea because most of what it does is in secret and so if people really want to be able to do it no, why not I don't get the idea that most of what it does is it's going to be having quite words of people and you don't know that people are doing it so on what basis do you have to reelect people this has actually been a challenge for most DPLs through the way things like this have been dealt with in the past certainly the case during my tenure as DPL that a lot of the things that I was doing that were really useful to DPL were completely out of view and I would have felt it inappropriate to be talking about them publicly because of the nature of who was being talked to and what was being said and it leads to this interesting situation where all of the things that you're sort of the most proud of are the things that people haven't seen and aren't going to ever be able to give you credit for so the thing I worry about perhaps as a means to establish an initial constituency of such a committee an election process would be one of the purposes but I worry about this whole sort of dynamic you're putting someone in a situation of wanting to tell you about the six or eight things they did that they're really proud of in order to convince you that they should continue in that role and that might all be breaking confidence there's a strange dynamic here I don't know what the answer is one main concern that well Menage agreed with me so I think I have some basis on that you can just just pedantic or something the accountability that is provided by regular reelection and even if regular means every five years it's important because people want to have because it's all these decisions are sensitive and something and they are really moved, they're vague do I like this person or do I trust this person enough to make decisions for me and things like that you want to introduce a measure that will allow people to replace the bad seeds even if it's every five years so you want the decisions of the committee to be playing to the gallery for the last year if every five years that's probably all right actually we don't mind if this particular does replace the gallery because it's a US where judges are appointed and they're appointed for a term and they can be removed by general election at the end of the term where they can be kept and if they're removed someone else gets appointed right so it's this interesting hybrid of you don't get to elect anyone you want to that position but there is in fact a periodic opportunity to vote someone out if the general claim is that this person's been elected is just not out which was something just sit out who is just not out and not do any little work for the last year other priorities which is a and that will happen in five years time 20% of people so you have elections for a place run approval voting individually on each member and then the ones that don't get approved get replaced by the DVR that's yeah so but we'll elect them to start with because either one of them will just appoint them to start with I don't care my initial proposal was to have a by year election where of course you know when I proposed a seniority quota they didn't notice all that at first I said it was 33% people have to be in the project for some period of time so that they have like experience there's a marker experience and then someone said okay maybe we can't like that there's a mathematical problem there's a look and blah blah blah okay we reduced the quota even after the quota was reduced to 25% one person stepped up and said okay I think the quota is a good idea but you don't have to specify it it will play out like that by default people will, it will happen anyway so this thing about re-electing people who were good as opposed to not electing the bad seeds the people who weren't good this will happen naturally so you can put all the 7 people and you put all 7 of them on the ballot, the 5 who were active will get re-elected by the developer body because everyone will be just clicking the boxes people aren't that distrustful that's something we are maybe the local minorities who complain and bitch and they make this thing that we are a very non-cooperative bunch but we are a co-operative bunch so if you just put them there they still will get elected most of the people what I would like more to make sure the social committee is moving forward even if it's re-elected it will be split up into 2 parts so we always have about half of the people at least they want Sam you've been pretty quiet for a while do you have any thoughts you've been in the midst of some interesting discussions sure well one thing that I haven't said yet is that for the moment what the powers that that will be delegated the initial committee will be delegated I have already been using them to some success because we are being destructive magically stopped acting like that so my whole year is done most of them weren't even Devin developers and well I think we need to decide that we need to act on people who are not Devin developers as well because often the people who are destructive are just outsiders not very aware of what's happening in Devin well I really don't mind delegating or going through a vote I don't have an opinion on this I'm really more interested in the actual powers of that committee so well it should be to take a decision whether the good strike process that committee should be through a delegation of an election I can make the decision if no one seems to be able to create some sort of success we have a quite finished conversation but more or less we have we need to document it on the main list and to get the opinions of whoever is not here you know I'm making some notes and just before I leave I will write 5 or 10 minutes I'll go through and just check that everybody is sort of roughly what I've written down there seems to be an assumption in what you've been saying that elections are an inherent good understanding sorry what do you think I didn't understand there seems to be an assumption behind some of what you were saying that elections are which elections I was thinking about the bootstrap the general elections and things we can discuss that the details about the judges because essentially it's a more or less fucking judicial the thing about the judges it enables you to get rid of bad people but really the default will generally be to vote in favour of people and that's the way we want it we don't want people to have to show all the good stuff they've done and we'll keep them if they haven't we'll basically call some kind of problem so if we have an anti-vote rather than a vote I much prefer that because otherwise you have to have you have to take time off to campaign to get back into the committee room if the general population of the developers think that person's not putting their vote then they can have to be smart to campaign against the person then they can defend themselves and then we have a vote and it's not clean if that doesn't happen then but maybe I think it would be a good thing if they have got votes by default because I think a lot of developers wouldn't consider it fit or they don't feel that they would be oppressed if they were campaign against a certain person so it should be vote by default but if it's a vote I'd have a tendency to go around to campaign because the next one you know I think we can push them away because there's time after their vote but it would seem for some people who want to form a certain party but we should how often do we want to hold one of these anti-votes yearly, two-yearly if you combine that it would say ok there's a possibility of an anti-vote you can vote to remove someone the proposal really as I understand it is to do a kind of approval thing so what you do is everybody is automatically voted on and everybody votes separately each voter votes separately yes or no for each individual person and all the people who get voted I think Andy was telling you that some people will not want to vote against somebody just because they were it's different of voting of a campaign say you need at least whatever 7 different statuses everybody should be voted automatically so that nobody has to stop the campaign but the question is how often every two years and we cite half of the committee year ok maybe it's a approval vote this is a approval vote but if you do a approval vote and you think we could do a year that doesn't actually nobody would be elected the reason I would be in favour of that is because in our industry and community people just really recommend right ok so if somebody is de-approved does the DPL just want a replacement and they don't get we don't vote again on a new person on the new person the DPL would be against the committee the DPL would be against the committee not to homemade life well I don't think it's the same problem because the technical technical competence this is not an article and the DPL decided to stay insane for that kind of position I would like to believe that no DPL is going to appoint someone who isn't going to work well in the committee it would be a problem for them as much as for the committee DPL is up for re-election anyway so there's a meeting function on this ok that's ok so it was initially are we going to have the DPL produce a list of people and provide them for voting or are we going to hold a normal election I think initially the the election would be normal election would be fine because we don't have this problem of people showing how good they think yeah so how do we decide after one year after one year do we vote on everybody does that mean that the number of people in the committee is fixed and immutable DPL decided to have the people in the committee initially decides or decides more people the whole thing is DPL delegations the DPL can change everything about it wherever they feel like actually everything so to answer at some time because we don't know how in a single time it's out so you need to lead actually so do you have like one or two more questions we can do very quickly the thing that's really missing still is are we allowing it to decide its own procedure just a simple yes yes it's a balance of the delegations yeah right and the DPL can change because and powers we still was my original proposal about access control decisions a good one or have we got some other wording or is somebody going to write some wording we're still a bit vague about that I would make some list discussion leading to a DPL decision about which powers they think they want to delegate to this committee or the personnel we have two points important here well both but major problem is many needs first so many needs to be said so so I think it makes sense to be able to judge it on many needs but also the behavior of the DDC on stuff like that because they are representative of the project and anything similar to the many needs such as the Wiki and the Ribbon forums you don't need to explain to this or you can just say like this is the Wiki and other than that there are people that doesn't have that or affect how they are in Switzerland okay I think that covers almost everything most of the mechanics I can probably write a complete proposal but I won't yet on summarize what we just discussed and the powers thing is the thing that we got back over and we'll discuss that on the next thank you thank you that was an productive discussion for such a difficult time hopefully well I wish