Slight wording tweaks in constitution #208
Conversation
"Position" is elsewhere used in a different context, and "seat" is elsewhere always used in this context (i.e. to mean one of the 7 "slots" of the SC that may or may not be filled). This makes the terminology more consistent.
philiptaron
left a comment
philiptaron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that this is a pure refactor, as best as I can read it.
The middle commit message (3e8a681 at time of writing) contains "election election" which I believe is in error.
Since "initial election" is a concept which may occur more than once, lets make that the primary focus of the first SC election, and let's make the very first election extra procedure (which no longer applies anyways) a subsection within it.
Right now the language is written in an "edge trigger" manner (i.e. "if a seat becomes vacant..."). But I believe the intent is in fact a "level trigger" (e.g. "when some seats are vacant...."). This switches the language to level triggering. As a consequence, it is also explicit that at the time the SC decides to hold a special election, more than one seat might be vacant.
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
constitution-formalism
branch
from
5c2a974 to
6cd2f55
Compare
|
Thanks for the approval and noticing that! I've fixed the wording of that commit message. |
| The removal can be justification for a special election where the removed person is not eligible to be a candidate. | ||
|
|
||
| [special election]: #special-elections | ||
| [initial election]: #special-elections |
doc/constitution.md
Outdated
| #### Special Elections | ||
|
|
||
| In the event of a resignation or other loss of a steering committee member (including a [removal for conduct](#removal-for-conduct)), a special election for that seat may be held if the SC deems it necessary, or the SC does not have half of the normal size. | ||
| In the event of resignations or other loss of steering committee members (including [removals for conduct](#removal-for-conduct)), the SC would have less than all 7 seats filled. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing from singular to plural in resignation, member and removal seems worse than before to me.
"Is this only meant for >1 or a single one, too?" This is clarified later, but no need to make it unclear in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the case I am thinking of is something like:
- After one member resigns, SC doesn't bother holding special elections
- After second member resigns, SC holds special elections for both seats
The singular / edge-triggered wording makes it a bit unclear whether special elections are just for the most recently-vacated seat, or for all vacant seat.
| Otherwise, the missing seats are assumed to be abstaining from all the SC votes. | ||
| A committee member elected in a special election will serve out the remainder of the term of the person they are replacing, regardless of the length of that remainder. | ||
|
|
||
| A special election for vacant seats may be held if the SC deems it necessary, or the SC does not have half of the normal size. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence is unclear (but it was before already). If the SC does not have half the normal size, may a special election be held or must it be? I think the latter is intended.
(possibly out of scope here)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is in scope if we want it to be :). My view matches yours: it must be held.
Here's a suggestion
| A special election for vacant seats may be held if the SC deems it necessary, or the SC does not have half of the normal size. | |
| When a seat a vacated, a special election might be planned. | |
| If the majority of the seats are still filled, the SC decides whether or hold a special election for vacant seats. | |
| If only minority of seats are still filled, either a special election or the dissolution of the entire SC (which is always something that may be voted on) must happen. |
3 participants
This should be a pure refactor. The meaning of the constitution should not be change. Any intentional meaning changes should be perused separately in other PRs.
Please see each commit for details of the rewording in question.
These were made at the same time as #207, based upon my struggling to understand the meaning of the constitution. I also have some other pure-refactor changes on top of these, but those are still a work in progress, so I will PR those separately if these pass.