Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:00:11PM +, Philip Hands wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > > If people really want to add a tie breaking rule, > > I was mostly trying to get rid of the need for one. > > How about just saying that appointments must be done one at a time? You mean informally as a custom? Yeah, that sounds good enough to me, it's easy for the DPL to do so --- or to mention in the appointment email that the order is significant, or answer publicly to nitpickers who will call them out for having forgot to do so :-) If instead you meant changing the GR to also change the CTTE appointment section, I'm not particularly thrilled at that idea. 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: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > If people really want to add a tie breaking rule, I was mostly trying to get rid of the need for one. How about just saying that appointments must be done one at a time? 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 pgpaa49E1gulR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
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
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes: Stefano> - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the Stefano> first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above Stefano> (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation Stefano> among them) Stefano> - 2-S seems to have received only positive reactions on Stefano> this list I think 2 and 2-s suffer from the same problem. Namely, in situations like the current one, they produce more churn than I like. So far I'd probably only second 2-r and not 2 or 2-s. --Sam -- 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/0149dd7296b1-28ab5477-58e3-44d9-b885-00c2061ed950-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote: > > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably > > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much. > > How about: I don't think this is a problem that is worth solving with extra complexity in the text of the Constitution. If a tie ever happens, I think we can count on the responsibility of the involved CTTE members to agree between them on who should step down; and possibly on the fact that they will all resign. But I bite. I don't think it is a good idea to tie the tie breaking rule to specific technology (the email message used for the appointment, IDs in the Debian user database, etc). If people really want to add a tie breaking rule, the most straightforward one is specifying that *the DPL* will break any tie. That would allow to further simplify the text, as we could then drop the rule about "most senior project membership", and only keep CTTE seniority. As the DPL is de facto empowered to break ties in advance (by appointing one member after the other instead of simultaneously) this change won't add any loophole. (The only quirk is that the DPL who will break ties is most likely not the same who did the appointments. But the Constitution should treat the DPL as an institution, not as a specific person, so I don't really see a problem with this difference.) 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: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote: > 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. That would work too, I suppose. -- 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/20141123120453.ga24...@grep.be
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 23/11/14 at 12:32 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will > > propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option > > compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2. > > Fair enough. > > How about the transitional measure? I think it would be nice to have > uniformity on those. Would you agree to drop the transitional measures, > with the rationale that the CTTE has already have quite a bit of churn? > > I now think the above would be appropriate for both 2 and 2-R. To obtain > an equivalent result with 2-S I think the transitional measure should > retroactively trigger a review on January 1st, 2015; which will in turn > cause expiries only on December 31st, 2015. A transitional measure does not have any effect on 2-R anyway, due to the recent resignations. 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. > > However, as I am not sure if it's just me, or if there's wider support > > for 2-R, I will ask the secretary to not automatically accept the > > amendment (as an amendment from the DPL), but instead require it to > > reach the usual number of sponsors. > > 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. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Our voting system is designed to handle this case just fine, and the > only drawback is that it makes the voting slightly more complex > because project members have to compare two options, and not just > approve/disapprove one -- but I think that voters can handle this > additional complexity just fine. Note that I never said voters cannot handle the complexity. I wanted to avoid it in the first place, if possible, because it has a cost. From your mail I conclude that avoiding it is not possible (assuming all proposed options will receive enough seconds, that is). > I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will > propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option > compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2. Fair enough. How about the transitional measure? I think it would be nice to have uniformity on those. Would you agree to drop the transitional measures, with the rationale that the CTTE has already have quite a bit of churn? I now think the above would be appropriate for both 2 and 2-R. To obtain an equivalent result with 2-S I think the transitional measure should retroactively trigger a review on January 1st, 2015; which will in turn cause expiries only on December 31st, 2015. > However, as I am not sure if it's just me, or if there's wider support > for 2-R, I will ask the secretary to not automatically accept the > amendment (as an amendment from the DPL), but instead require it to > reach the usual number of sponsors. 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. 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: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi, On 22/11/14 at 12:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > 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. This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to me. Our voting system is designed to handle this case just fine, and the only drawback is that it makes the voting slightly more complex because project members have to compare two options, and not just approve/disapprove one -- but I think that voters can handle this additional complexity just fine. I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2. However, as I am not sure if it's just me, or if there's wider support for 2-R, I will ask the secretary to not automatically accept the amendment (as an amendment from the DPL), but instead require it to reach the usual number of sponsors. I will also explicitely state that it should only be sponsored if one prefers that version to the original proposal. That way, either it will have sufficient support to prove that it's worth having a more complex ballot, or it won't be on the ballot. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
