Re: Re: [PEPr] Proposal finished Console::Console_Getargs

Klaus Guenther wrote:

fairness. So I'd be for an elected group only Stig is a life Group member and if there would be a number of seats that Stig can appoint.

Why make these two the same thing? The PEAR Group takes care of pressing matters. PEAR will always need a visionary figure, but Stig doesn't have the time to handle account requests, package approvals, and other piddly matters that are ultimately very important to the project's survival. The King always has power to dissolve parliament in extraordinary emergencies, but never has the power to appoint members. I am biased, being an American who took American History (TM) in high school, but I do believe that separate branches of governing with checks and balances are quite effective. Here's a structure that might be appealing to all and assuage the fears of all: PEAR Group: Elected group of people who handle enforcement of existing regulations, and propose new regulations for the unwashed masses to vote on. Day-to-day work of maintaining QA group, handling PEPr, and account administration is the primary responsibility. Changes from present: voting records are public, so people can have some information for elections (every democratic congress does this, afaik) PEAR King and cabinet: Stig and appointed friends have the power to veto any decision, and also to propose revisions to the governing structure and other larger issues. In the case of major conflict, the elected PEAR Group may propose an overriding veto vote. In order to override a veto, there must be a 75% +1 ratio, with at least 40 (50?) votes cast. In other words, it has to be REALLY important to a lot of developers to be worth overriding the veto. PEAR unwashed masses: The PEAR masses have the ability (as now) to propose new packages through PEPr, and new regulations (as now). No member of PEAR Group or PEAR King will have more privileges than PEAR masses with regards to new packages, all are on the same level playing field. This should be a very functional governmental structure, and the day-to-day stuff will have a healthy mandate to rule and make difficult decisions without having to put up with as much whining - people can simply wait for the next election. If this seems good, I may have time to do the RFC dance. Unfortunately, I am going to be in Italy next week playing concerts with my quartet (well, "unfortunately" might not be the right word...), so I won't be able to do this super ultra-pronto, but by mid-June, could get something in proper attire for presentation through PEPr. However, I think something as large as the change I'm suggesting must be a unanimous +1 from PEAR Group, and pretty close to it (90% +1 or more) from the PEAR unwashed masses. Also, a change as big as this should take a while (read: 6 months at least) to be mulled over the specifics until a little 1-page constitution describing how things should work can be drafted and revised until it's only 1/2 page and crystal clear. Greg