On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:30:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > That could work, though it's odd that Steve gets a shorter time > > in the chair than others. > > Two month terms offset by a month give 7 people a go at being chair > at some point each year. It also lets us start sooner rather than later.
Huh? I was thinking either (a) start the whole thing at the end of the month rather than the middle of the month, or (b) start each term on the 15th of a month. I guess you could argue that (a) is starting later rather than sooner, but beyond that I don't get it. > > Also, the handoffs are going to be interesting -- then again, the > > whole "rotating chair" thing is going to be interesting. > > I don't see how they should be much of a big deal; the chair's mostly > just first among equals. Oh, it's certainly doable. There'll just be a fair amount of gear shifting (which is basically the point). > > > (2) Requiring an implementation of proposals > > > The md5sum "decision" is still languishing after a year and a half, and > > ... > > > So I propose we establish a rule that we won't make decisions on issues > > > that aren't ready for an immediate NMU when we make that decision. > > I don't know that we need to make a rule about this so much as > > advertise a guideline. > > I was thinking along the lines of "rules of order", which isn't much > different from "advertising a guideline". The difference is if we set it > up as a rule, people can be confident we'll adhere to it, whereas if we > call it a guideline we might end up spending time wondering if we should > adhere to it on each issue. Eh... of course we already have something like this written into the constitution. But, sure, a little crisping up would probably be a good thing. > mail. But as it stands, two months after referring the topic to the ctte, > rleigh still couldn't tell if there was any resolution. So I think by mid > to late December he should've been able to cite a first pass statement > by Ian to the effect of "devmapper should setup inodes with permissions > 0600, and ownership as root.disk", possibly with a rider that that's > the chair's opinion not a final decision or whatever, but without any > devil's advocacy or further questions having already been dealt with. Ok. That was already my impression of how things are going, and I guess you're saying we should be more emphatic earlier in the process. > Second change is that I don't think the tech ctte should consider > unimplemented proposals; so while Bastian's ideas might be great, > our choice of resolution is "leave it as it is" or "implement rleigh's > patches"; obviously once Bastian's idea is implemented, it could replace > either outcome, but until then we have to make a choice between things > we can do now. That's from issue (2). Hmm... I don't think we can consider anything but unimplemented proposals. As a general rule, we're supposed to help solve unsolved problems. Maybe you meant that we should not consider ambiguous proposals? I can see that as a weakness of our approach on this issue. Thanks, -- Raul
