On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:11:08PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft > resolution"): > > Augh, we just agreed on a rotation, why a new one now? Downside to the > > above: it schedules newbies and oldbies together rather than interspersing > > them (Me then Andy; Bdale then Ian).
> Your resolution doesn't deal with the problems that mine addresses. > In particular, it doesn't address the need for the implied > resignations and doesn't explain what the purported mechanism is. I don't agree that yours addresses this issue either. The constitution specifies a mechanism for voting in a new chair, which is that a vote is held when the vacancy occurs. We can certainly comport ourselves however we choose to with regard to internal committee procedures (tacit agreements that a particular person will drive discussions on a particular issue, draft resolutions, etc), but wrt the official duties of the Committee Chair (casting votes/standing in for the DPL), we have no right to expect the Project to accept as legitimate a Chair election that doesn't follow the specified procedure. So since there is no provision in the constitution for voting for a successor to the Chair except in the week preceding a vacancy, I don't see any way that voting this rotation as a whole can be binding on the project. > I don't want our decisions to be challeged because some chairman's > casting vote is allegedly invalid. I don't either, which is why this vote needs to be "Ian has stepped down; who will succeed him?" in order to be binding under the constitution. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature