TL;DR: the latest complete drafts of proposals 2, 2-R, and 2-S are available at:
https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/ please have a look if you care about any of them. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:57:32PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > A transitional measure does not have any effect on 2-R anyway, due to > the recent resignations. Correct. But the latest draft of 2-R still contained a (redundant, given the current churn) transitional measure. Given your mail, I've now removed it, please let me know if you've further changes [1]. [1]: https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/gr.2-R.txt > For "2", I agree that it would be better not to have expiries before > 2016-01-01. Note that to achieve that without a transitional measure, > the GR must pass on 2015-01-02 at the earliest; which means that the > vote must not start before 2014-12-19, and that the discussion period > must not start before 2014-12-05. It might not be worth waiting until > then, so you might want to add a transitional measure such as: > > As a transitional measure, the first automatic review of membership > of the Technical Committee will happen on 2016-01-01. That looked like a good idea to me, so I've implemented it [2]. [2]: https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/gr.2.txt For 2-S, I've done my best to adapt its transitional measure to have roughly the same effect of other proposals. And I've tried to formulate it in a way that is independent of whether the GR is passed before or after December 31st. What I came up with is [3]: As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after December 31st, 2014, the term of any Committee member who, as of January 1st, 2015, had served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who was one of the two most senior members is set to expire on December 31st, 2015. [3]: https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/gr.2-S.txt > > I can't find the reference right now, but IIRC we've discussed this > > during the init system coupling GR and I don't think it's possible: you > > are DPL, if you introduce an amendment, it's automatically accepted. I > > don't remember if the Secretary acknowledged that interpretation, but > > reading of §4.2.1 doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. > > So you could either ask someone else to propose the amendment, or gather > > seconds informally yourself and only propose the amendment when you've > > received K of them. > > According to <20141017174252.gb10...@roeckx.be>, I think it's possible. > But maybe the Secretary can clarify. Ah yes, that was the thread I had in mind, thanks. I found follow-ups to that message [4,5] to be fairly convincing, but we clearly need an answer from the Secretary. [4]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00172.html [5]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00194.html Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
