Officer appointment

[juanvallejo]

Have president have a say, but not the final say, in new officer positions

[nathantypanski]

Consensus seems to be along the lines of:

1. Some sort of election process
2. President signs some piece of paper, which is the "appointment"

which is what we've done anyway.[1]

Alternate process (perhaps better; it has almost the same power balance but solves the problem of "who can nominate people"):

1. Presidential appointment,
2. "Advice and consent" model, per majority vote[2] in the community.

Not sure which is better. Neither is very bad.

[1]: At least for the treasurer position. We should have done it for the secretary tbh, since breaking our own rules is dumb. I'm not a fan of the whole "we're not ratified so we can do whatever we want" attitude (and I think it's tacitly harmful). What little process we have in the constitution atm exists for a reason: so that it can be fluid and open to improvement, but where we're forced to think about things a little bit so we don't mess it up.

[2]: Probably defined in terms of "active members", a term that seems to fit well.

[juanvallejo]

Alternate process (perhaps better; it has almost the same power balance but solves the problem of "who can nominate people")

I think the second one is better. At least in terms of thinking ahead for future presidents and unforeseen situations they may face, it would be better to have the president have the first say as to who should hold a position and then be advised by a voting majority, rather than have a president, whether in good intention or not, dictate a final say on a majority decision.

[1]: At least for the treasurer position. We should have done it for the secretary tbh

We can keep that in mind for the future. For the secretary position, we could just duplicate the treasurer "appointment" document in the notary repo and adjust its wording for this position.