On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:12:13 +0000, Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> said:
[...] > 3) 2-s I think would expire 1 person, because Ian was in s, right? > 4) Anthony's new proposal would schedule the two most senior folks to > expire at end of 2015, right? So you'd have up to 5 experienced folks > through most of 2015. As the person who suggested 2-S, I think that Anthony's proposal has the same practical effect after the upcoming year, and preferred Anthony's wording. So I think of them as being essentially the same, and I wouldn't want both on the ballot. Of course for the purposes of your comparison, they are different, but we can treat them the same if we pretend that Anthony's proposal has a transitional measure clause that said that the two most senior members of the TC as of 2014-01-01 had their memberships set to expire on 2014-12-31. (I don't have an opinion on whether we should have such a transitional measure clause.) There's also the 2-R' proposal, and for the record, I would prefer not to have both 2-R' and 2-S on the ballot, because I consider them similar enough that I think that having an extra option on the ballot would do more harm than good. On the other hand, I would not oppose having both on the ballot. It's just that if someone formally proposes 2-R' for voting on, I personally would not propose 2-S. -- Hubert Chathi <uho...@debian.org> -- Jabber: hub...@uhoreg.ca PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87y4r4myuh....@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca
