Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-22, 12:35: As a transitional measure, 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 as of January 1st, 2014 is set to expire one month after this GR is passed. s/who has/who had/, s/who is/who was/? -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20141122154717.ga4...@jwilk.net
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Philip Hands writes: > Wouter Verhelst writes: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> [...] >>> 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. >> >> I think it makes more sense to have someone who was previously a member >> of the TC have more seniority, before "age" within the project: > > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much. How about: For the purpose of determining seniority, simultaneous appointments are deemed to have taken place in the order of names in the mail that announced their appointment. The TC can then decide how they're going to do the ordering at appointment time, and that's then clear to all -- no need to come up with lots of words that might still not give a distinct result. 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 pgpHVbmULUPTx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > [...] >> 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. > > I think it makes more sense to have someone who was previously a member > of the TC have more seniority, before "age" within the project: I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much. I was tempted to suggest that we deal with it by doing something like combine the appointment date and debian username, checksum that and sort by the result, but actually why don't we just avoid the problem completely by saying that we don't do simultaneous appointments? If we have multiple appointments on the same day, we can select at that moment who is going to be considered the earlier appointment, and appoint them a minute earlier, or some such. That decision can be made on any basis that the people in the TC feel reasonable at the time. The timestamps of the emails where the candidates declare that they're willing to be appointed would be a reasonable default. 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 pgpOHrCyUU85E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:35:28 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said: [...] > For reference, I'm attaching the current version of the 2-S GR text. > I'm still waiting to see if people object to that idea, but the only > remaining change I'd like to apply to that proposal is to remove the > transitional measure, on the basis of the fact that we've already had > quite a bit of churn in the CTTE due to recent events. For the record, I added the transitional measure for easier comparison with the other methods, but other than that, due to the amount churn that we've already had, I have no opinion as to whether it should be there or not, as I mentioned in another email. -- Hubert Chathi -- 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/87h9xrmkhc@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:44AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I think it makes more sense to have someone who was previously a > > member of the TC have more seniority, before "age" within the project: > > > > A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior than > > another if they were appointed earlier. In the case where two members > > of the Committee were appointed at the same time, then total time > > served on the Committee (including previous appointments in the event > > of a member being appointed more than once) and membership time in the > > Debian Project as a whole will be considered, in that order. > > Considering the likelihood of a situation in which the two alternative > approach lead to different results, is it worth an increase from 60 > words to 77 (including a parenthetical)? I'm not so sure this is very unlikely. First of all, the DAM tends to approve NM applications in batch; sometimes in a large batch. As a result, most people in the Project are a member of Debian for the same amount of time, to the day. Due to the birthday paradox and the higher rate of rotation of people serving on the TC as a result of this change, a situation where two people are in Debian for the same amount of time ar both concurrently serving on the TC is likely to occur at some point. Second, a proposal to review two TC members at the same time will make it likely that the replacement members are appointed at the same time, too. If an odd number of people then resigns from the TC, you will at some point have the situation where the least senior of the two "most senior" people shares an appointment date with someone else. If the originally-resigning people did not serve on the TC for very long prior to their resignation, this situation may persist for a few years, increasing the likelihood of the next item on the list of "things considered to determine seniority" comes into play. If the goal of this proposal is to increase the amount of fresh ideas in the TC, then the difference between "A person having been in Debian for 15 years of which 8 as a member of the TC" and "A person having been in Debian for 15 years of which 4 as a member of the TC" should be in favour of the latter. I do agree that the wording is suboptimal and could use some improvement, though. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- 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/20141122121935.gi8...@grep.be
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be: > 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD > I'm assuming your vote would be: > 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD > This is hard to reconcile. [...] > But I don't think that a ballot with several options is necessarily > very bad, as our voting system handles those cases just fine. > > What we should focus on is ensuring that it remains easy for everybody > to understand and rank the various options. Yes, that is the issue. What you propose (summaries with pro/cons) is of course a solution, but it requires quite a bit of work. And even if we do that work, the decision about how to vote would be more complex for DDs in comparison with a more straightforward yes/no ballot. And all this is, IMO, for relatively little gain, as we are essentially bikeshedding on minutiae at this point. Given that: - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation among them) - 2-S seems to have received only positive reactions on this list would you refrain from proposing 2-R as an amendment if 2-S were to be the initial GR proposal? If so, I'd be happy to do the same for 2, and we can have a simple yes/no ballot. I.e., can we agree on 2-S as a mediation and simplify voting for everyone? For reference, I'm attaching the current version of the 2-S GR text. I'm still waiting to see if people object to that idea, but the only remaining change I'd like to apply to that proposal is to remove the transitional measure, on the basis of the fact that we've already had quite a bit of churn in the CTTE due to recent events. 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 » 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, 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 as of January 1st, 2014 is set to expire one month after this GR is passed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:44AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > 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. > > I think it makes more sense to have someone who was previously a > member of the TC have more seniority, before "age" within the project: > > A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior than > another if they were appointed earlier. In the case where two members > of the Committee were appointed at the same time, then total time > served on the Committee (including previous appointments in the event > of a member being appointed more than once) and membership time in the > Debian Project as a whole will be considered, in that order. Considering the likelihood of a situation in which the two alternative approach lead to different results, is it worth an increase from 60 words to 77 (including a parenthetical)? -- 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: Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:44:42PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > Hi, > > > 6.2. Composition > > > > 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should > >usually have at least 4 members. > > 2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may > >recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose > >(individually) to appoint them or not. > > 3. When there are 5 members or fewer the Technical Committee may > >appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6. > > 4. When there have been 5 members or fewer for at least one week the > >Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of > >members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per > >appointment. > > Why not avoid the casting vote problem by stipulating that the number > of members should always be an odd number. The problem with that is that if an odd number of members recuse themselves because they feel that they are involved somehow and wouldn't be able to vote fairly, you again have an even number. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- 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/20141122085431.gc8...@grep.be
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [...] > 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. I think it makes more sense to have someone who was previously a member of the TC have more seniority, before "age" within the project: "A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior than another if they were appointed earlier. In the case where two members of the Committee were appointed at the same time, then total time served on the Committee (including previous appointments in the event of a member being appointed more than once) and membership time in the Debian Project as a whole will be considered, in that order." Other than that, looks good. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26 -- 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/20141122085144.gb8...@grep.be
