Re: Accounts -- to be active or not to be

[Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk>]

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 06:38, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
[...]
> --- Muhammad Alkarouri <malkarouri at yahoo dot co dot uk> wrote:
> > My personal suggestion is that we use the honour system, with some
> > qualifications. Anybody committed in last 6 months can run and anyone
> > committed in last 12 can vote (the suggestion) + the list of runners
> > and voters are to be announced before hands. Any person who should
> > not be able to run and/or vote is disqualified by core, possibly after
> > a complaint by a member, _before_ voting actually occurs.
> 
> This is problematic and not systematic (I can't script this ;-) - meaning,

Nor can I :)

> people need to get involved and this costs time and effort (remember we
> are here to develop and arabize).  As noted, we should not really turn
> this into a full time hobby - we need something simple, practical
> and fair while at the same time being proactive in protecting the overall
> interests of this project.  What you note above, beyond the cost/time
> factors, could also be abused yet its an option nonetheless.

My suggestion is actually not abuse proof. As you previously noted there
is no such system. It was actually meant to use the system as usual,
with a provision for a worst case scenario, should it ever occurs.

As Alaa said, this worst case scenario is really very unprobable,
because a CVS account holder doesn't pop up overnight, as I also
mentioned earlier. I don't agree with him, however, that an unfairly
elected core member in a team of 5 is something core can live with, if
the unfairly elected member has hidden agenda, which he/she probably
has. I don't know of a car that goes with a punctured tyre, to further
the 'a la mode' car analogy.

Frankly, what I am afraid for is rather the other way round. Given the
current situation we may end up having candidates _less_ rather than
more for the core team.

The systematic solutions you are seeking are either:
- Using my suggestion, which is your system (6run12vote) plus a simple
ban list (could be a text file) which is generated manually and observed
by the voting system, the candidates being already generated by the
system (active cvs accounts), or
- Deciding on arbitraty complex rules to judge. 6R12V and the person
should be X and hasn't been Y since Z and is within the bounds of W,
etc.

In fact, given that no such exceptions as I mentioned are expected this
time, you will probably make the system without the ban list, and do
that next year.

After all, if the worst scenario does happen, you will have all the
headache, either before or after the elections.

If anybody has a better solution, please come forward.

k