Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Richard Hartmann]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli  wrote:
> - I haven't mentioned it yet publicly (still due to ENOTIME), but I
>   still have mixed feelings about the provision that allows "younger"
>   ctte members to step down, inhibiting the expiry of "older" members.
>   I'm not necessarily against that, but I'm struggling to understanding
>   its rationale.
>
>   Others: how do you feel about that?

As there were not other replies to this: It seems weird and would need
a good rationale; plus some poking at potential corner cases.


>   Antony: can you remind us what the rationale is?

Yes, please.



Richard


-- 
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/CAD77+gT6zhi8ZOn2yK0vwKseUi7dq1Q=fza2jotwrrbfcw4...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Richard Hartmann]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Neil McGovern  wrote:
> I'd personally prefer it happening after this vote is concluded

Strong support. And given Lucas' proposed timed trigger, even more so.


Richard


-- 
Richard


-- 
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/CAD77+gSBW0-BHaa_ZH=iBrmoLsZ=tzng+khuhnae+vvgzvt...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Russ Allbery]

Andreas Henriksson  writes:

> This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning:

> - There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership
>   rotation.
> - We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to
>   always follow this principle.

As a TC member, I would like there to be some structure to the job,
because there's never a good time to step down, there's always something
in progress, etc.  If there is a schedule that everyone has agreed to,
then it's reliable and predictable and straightforward.

If we don't end up getting that into the constitution, I will set a
schedule for my own involvement in the TC independently.  But I think we
will, institutionally, benefit from having there be a commonly-agreed-on
schedule that we all use, including people who are considering joining.

> - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the
>   basic principle.

I really don't think it's a matter of trust so much that some things do
work better with a process agreed-on in advance, even when everyone has
the same goals and same desires.

The TC could indeed go off and come up with a process on its own, but why
not involve the project as a whole?  Other people have had really good
ideas about what that project would look like.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
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/87egtgpa7e@hope.eyrie.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:02:59PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think
> > that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in
> > the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the
> > sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their
> > mouths without asking first.
> 
> This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning:
>
> - There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership
>   rotation.
> - We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to
>   always follow this principle.
> - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the
>   basic principle.
> - Therefor we must allow existing tech-ctte members to continue
>   violating the basic principle so they can enforce it against future
>   members.

I disagree yours is a fair summary of what I wrote. Either way, it is
not a fair summary of what I think. Therefore I don't think your
conclusion on my alleged mistrust on (any number of) tech-ctte members
is warranted.

> As you probably understand, you haven't convinced me yet but to
> avoid making this yet another unneccesary long discussion we should
> probably just agree to disagree here.

Indeed, let's do that :)

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: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Andreas Henriksson]

Hello Stefano Zacchiroli.

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:13:06PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that tech-ctte members
> > apparently recognize the need but still want to be force-rotated rather
> > then voluntarily doing it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end
> > up in a committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia and
> > want to see as much as possible of it.
> 
> I find this explanation to be absolutely backward. There are good
> reasons for *not* wanting a maximum term limit to be just folklore.

Without this made up second part of the sentance, it means nothing to me:

... and if we rotate members now, it will forever remain folklore.

(Which I ofcourse don't think is true.)

> If it is something important (and I think it is), then it should really be
> carved in the stone of a foundation document. That way you avoid the
> risk of people trying to game the system and, more importantly, the
> social awkwardness of having to deal with that situation, no matter how
> unlikely that is to happen. As I've mentioned before: a Constitution is
> precisely the place where one wants to be paranoid.

I don't see any obstacles for improving the constitution at any time.
I also don't see how the constitution not yet being the perfect document
should be allowed to be an obstacle for just doing the right thing.

> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think
> that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in
> the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the
> sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their
> mouths without asking first.

This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning:

- There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership
  rotation.
- We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to
  always follow this principle.
- We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the
  basic principle.
- Therefor we must allow existing tech-ctte members to continue
  violating the basic principle so they can enforce it against future
  members.

Seems like a whole lot of distrust to me. Would be very refreshening
to see someone take a leap of faith just to prove that we're not
building the entire project based on distrust (and constitutional
documents to deal with that distrust).

As you probably understand, you haven't convinced me yet but to
avoid making this yet another unneccesary long discussion we should
probably just agree to disagree here. Neither of this was my primary
motivation for my initial mail. I just wanted to express my support
of Anthony Towns to go ahead with his proposal despite his very
honorable attempts at letting more active contributors propose the
changes we want to see in the project. Just couldn't resist to also
voice my opinion on a related matter, which might have been good
if I managed to resist.

Regards,
Andreas Henriksson


-- 
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/20141106120259.ga3...@fatal.se