Adeodato Simó writes ("Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?"): > It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or > less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that > once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over > the lists.
Quite possibly. > I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while > ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's > a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the > discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it. Right. > So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list > of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them > "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO, > having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them, > and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering > and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too. I think this is a good idea. Are you volunteering to maintain the wiki page, and post periodic summaries of the schedule and so on ? :-) > Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling: ... > * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and > Matthew Johnson express interest in this). I think we need to get our GR procedures sorted before we tackle the others since the others may well involve GRs. We have a number of constitutional proposals: - Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots - Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so - Increase GR quorum (various options) - Clarify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the SC - Fix TC supermajority off-by-one error - Increase TC maximum size Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org