Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:30:25PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. In the special case that a member is replaced, the new member resets it's status or does him inherits the status of the one being replaced? My take: from the point of view of the replacer that would be a new appointment, so to me the only (reasonable) interpretation is that seniority gets reset, as per the seniority rule in §6.2. But even if the converse interpretation were to be in effect, the ctte and the DPL can route around that by doing the removal first and then a fresh appointment. 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
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
]] Stefano Zacchiroli I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named 2-S; see [1,2] for (the last known versions of) alternative proposals. I like the term limit concept. I'm wondering if we should have a wider proposal in which we just make the CTTE an elected body. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I'm also not sure if it's been discussed at all (only having followed some of the -vote discussions around this from the web archives). -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87fvcyh2tr@aexonyam.err.no
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: ]] Stefano Zacchiroli I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named 2-S; see [1,2] for (the last known versions of) alternative proposals. I like the term limit concept. I'm wondering if we should have a wider proposal in which we just make the CTTE an elected body. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I'm also not sure if it's been discussed at all (only having followed some of the -vote discussions around this from the web archives). Wouldn't it have been great if the various factions around the systemd issue had got the idea early on to try to stuff the committee with their respective friends before the decision. Personally I think there's more than enough voting going on as it is, and adding reasons to have more regular votes will just promote the idea (that is already rather hard to dissuade people of) that all one needs to do is vote for a thing, and somehow it will magically do itself. It does not strike me as obvious that popularity correlates to competence. Also, it would not be helpful if members of the committee were tempted to take the popular side of an argument, against their better judgement, because they were coming to the end of their term, and they would like to be reelected. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgpG3CyzV22Ne.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:46:01AM +, Philip Hands wrote: It does not strike me as obvious that popularity correlates to competence. Also, it would not be helpful if members of the committee were tempted to take the popular side of an argument, against their better judgement, because they were coming to the end of their term, and they would like to be reelected. +1 All the usual arguments against elected judges in democracies apply here, and I'm personally very much against the election of arbitration bodies in general. If anything, the highly technical nature of a project like Debian reinforces those arguments. More importantly, it doesn't seem to me we're near having a concrete GR proposal for electing ctte members. So IMO it would be best to disentangle this discussion from the term limit GR proposal. 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
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
On Tuesday 02 December 2014 09:03:35 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 07:30:25PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. In the special case that a member is replaced, the new member resets it's status or does him inherits the status of the one being replaced? My take: from the point of view of the replacer that would be a new appointment, so to me the only (reasonable) interpretation is that seniority gets reset, as per the seniority rule in §6.2. But even if the converse interpretation were to be in effect, the ctte and the DPL can route around that by doing the removal first and then a fresh appointment. That sounds enough then :) Thanks! -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
]] Philip Hands Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: ]] Stefano Zacchiroli I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named 2-S; see [1,2] for (the last known versions of) alternative proposals. I like the term limit concept. I'm wondering if we should have a wider proposal in which we just make the CTTE an elected body. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but I'm also not sure if it's been discussed at all (only having followed some of the -vote discussions around this from the web archives). Wouldn't it have been great if the various factions around the systemd issue had got the idea early on to try to stuff the committee with their respective friends before the decision. If we assume four-year terms, that'd have been, at max, two members out of the eight. Personally I think there's more than enough voting going on as it is, and adding reasons to have more regular votes will just promote the idea (that is already rather hard to dissuade people of) that all one needs to do is vote for a thing, and somehow it will magically do itself. I'm not seeing people having that idea. It does not strike me as obvious that popularity correlates to competence. Also, it would not be helpful if members of the committee were tempted to take the popular side of an argument, against their better judgement, because they were coming to the end of their term, and they would like to be reelected. If that's the only reason, make it so people can sit for a maximum of one term before being off the committee for a full term and that effect more or less vanishes. I'm not saying «We should absolutely have an elected TC», I'm saying that I think it's something that's worth discussing. As for Zack's point about this process being underway already: yes, that's the point. If we want to change things about the TC, let's put out a comprehensive proposal instead of changing one thing now and another thing in six or twelve months. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87d28168qi@xoog.err.no
major Changes to the TC?
Tollef == Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes: Tollef As for Zack's point about this process being underway Tollef already: yes, that's the point. If we want to change things Tollef about the TC, let's put out a comprehensive proposal instead Tollef of changing one thing now and another thing in six or twelve Tollef months. hi. First, I have a conflict of interest here in that I've thrown my name into the hat as a potential TC member. Having disclosed that conflict, I don't think it's serious enough to preclude me participating in the discussion. Secondly, I'm not responding to Clint's proposal to remove the TC. If you're convinced that the TC doesn't have value, then now probably is the time to remove it before people spend time trying to figure out how to approach a significant chunk of feedback we've received. I want to be very careful about change, particularly change that requires a high bar (constitutional amendments qualify) to implement. The main reason is that I think we're better at refining process, better at trying incremental improvement than we are at predicting the impact and value of major changes. I think there's a lot of frustration with the TC process of late. We've seen several TC members (Russ, Don, Keith, perhaps more) express that frustration. We've seen several members of the project express frustration. I've seen several people call for more of a consensus process, for more trying to work together than for the kind of decision making we've seen lately. I've noticed these calls because they align well with how I think and work. It's probable that other directions have been suggested that I didn't take as strong of notice of because they are less natural for me. I think that revising how the TC works is something best done incrementally with the TC working with the project. I don't think we'll be able to codify a new way of working quickly. We might be able to quickly write down *what we're trying today*, and have that be an easily revised living document. However the whole point will be able to try things and adjust. I'm concerned that how the TC functions could significantly impact what selection procedure you want for a TC. I don't think revising those together in parallel will produce best results. Also, I don't think revising the selection procedure is likely to be a good way to achieve a TC that works best with the project; I don't think we could easily predict how the TC selection approach will impact style of interaction. I don't for example think there's a tie between popular election winners and good consensus builders as compared to appointed delegates. So, yes, I do actually think we'll get better results if we change one thing now and then later change a few things six months down the road. So, I urge us to evolve not revolt. Thanks for your consideration, --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/014a0d15e0f8-7911b174-15c9-4496-b6bc-cc5208b96036-000...@email.amazonses.com
