Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members

2014-11-24 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:01:40PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > 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.

I don't have a strong opinion about it, and it seems that most
people seem to think that the person that is DPL is always
proposing as the DPL.  So I'm going to go with that view.


Kurt


-- 
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/20141124232153.ga17...@roeckx.be



[DRAFT #3] Maximum term for tech ctte members

2014-11-24 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
Dear all,
  you can find attached a 3rd, hopefully final, iteration of the CTTE
term limit GR proposals. It is now plural, as the discussion has made
clear that there are alternative models that people might want to see on
the ballot as separate options.

I attach 4 alternative versions of the GR, nicknamed in the discussion
respectively "2", "2-R", "2-S", and "max". For a comparison of the
intuitions behind them I recommend the excellent summary by Lucas [1].

[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00241.html

In addition to the changes we have discussed recently on this list, I've
also (with the help of Anthony Towns) uniformed their wordings so that
people can focus on the the real differences among them. diff/wdiff on
the GR texts should give meaningful outputs.

With respect to the last draft, the most relevant change is that the
transitional measures (or their absence, depending on the proposal) have
been changed to trigger the first expiry at the end of 2015. This is
based on my perception of rough consensus on the fact that there has
already been quite a bit of churn in the CTTE and that forcing "too
much" of it only due to the timing of this GR is not a desirable
outcome.

An exception to the uniformity of the effects of transitional measures
is "max". I haven't touched it partly because it doesn't seem to have
received much attention as of lately, and partly because it seems to
actually have as a goal that of quickly converging to the desired term
limit.


Personally, I plan to formally call for seconds on the "2-S" proposal
(which in the end I find simpler and more elegant than "2") 1 week from
now. It is my understanding that Lucas will propose as an amendment
"2-R", provided that at least K developers would second that.


Further reviews and comments are more than welcome.

For reference, the latest version of each proposal should always be
available at:

  https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/

with "sources" at:

  http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=tree


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-R.txt2014-11-24 10:24:42.109426386 +0100
@@ -299,8 +299,22 @@
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 54 months (4.5 years) and who is one
+of the N most senior members automatically expires. N is
+defined as 2-R (if R < 2) or 0 (if R >= 2). R is the number of
+former members of the Technical Committee who have resigned,
+or been removed or replaced within the previous 12 months.
+ 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
 
---
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 serve

Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

2014-11-24 Thread Philip Hands
Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

> 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 :-)

Sounds fine to me.

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


pgpdRtSQoeIKZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members

2014-11-24 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.

I would hope that to be possible, too, yes, but I wouldn't gamble the
stability of one of our most core institutions on having to change the
constitution to fix an issue when people are fighting over it on the
street...

> 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's probably the best option. It would also seriously reduce the
amount of extra complexity for a tie breaking rule.

I would feel more comfortable if it were explicitly mentioned, though.
If a problem ever occurred due to this, technically the DPL could claim
"urgent action" and do it under 5.1.3, but I would find that reasoning
strained.

After all, the constitution gives the DPL the power to *assign* someone
to the committee, but not to remove someone; that is far from the same
thing.

-- 
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/20141124085041.ga29...@grep.be