>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): >> For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff. Ian> Um, I'm confused. I did not suggest what I would think of Ian> `automated stuff'. That is, I am not suggesting there should Ian> be a robot, or an absolute rule. Ian> I am suggesting that the TC should have, effectively, a Ian> standing rule that this is the /normal/ way to proceed: Ian> I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner Ian> requests, be subject to a quick vote on whether to preserve the Ian> status quo (perhaps by overruling to at least temporarily Ian> revert a recent maintainer decision). I'd agree with that if you replace submitter with k TC members. I.E. my objection is to having submitters create work for the TC when no one on the TC agrees the work is valuable. Ian> This should be documented somewhere so that a submitter knows Ian> they can request it. Agreed. Even if it takes TC members to get this process going, I think we should do a much better job of documenting internal TC process.