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
GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
[ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote. For more background information on the development of this proposal, see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ] 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. [1]: https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/ [2]: http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=tree === The Constitution is amended as follows: --- --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100 +++ constitution.2-S.txt2014-11-21 16:56:47.328071287 +0100 @@ -299,8 +299,20 @@ Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per appointment. -5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may +5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical + Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months. +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. +7. Term limit: + 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member +who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one +of the two most senior members is set to expire on December +31st of that year. + 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior +than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed +at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project +longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more +than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant. 6.3. Procedure --- As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after January 1st, 2015, then the provision of section §6.2.7.1 is taken to have occurred on January 1st, 2015. === I'd like to thank Anthony Towns for introducing the term limit idea several months ago [3] and for his help in polishing it through several rounds of feedback on the -vote mailing list. [3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054 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 Monday 01 December 2014 12:20:25 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [snip] +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? Yes, maybe I'm too picky here, but who knows... -- 9: Que es el Explorador de Windows * El tipo que le roba las ideas a MacOs Damian Nadales http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
