Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 21/11/14 at 10:45 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > There are three different variants that consider resignations/removals: > > "2-R": <20141119091345.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, formalized in ><20141120204606.ga30...@upsilon.cc> > expire the 2-R most senior members, with R the number of > resignations/removals > over the last 12 months) > > "2-R'": <20141119220621.ga31...@master.debian.org> > R' is the number of resignations of people who have been on the TC for more > than 4.5 years > > "2-S": <874mttkatj@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> > S is the number of members who have resigned since the last review period, > and who would have been expired at the current review period if they had > not resigned. > A nice formation for that one is: <20141120211711.gb27...@master.debian.org> > On Jan 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 Dec 31st of that year. Since I was asked for clarification about those, I'll provide an example. Let's assume that the four older members of the TC are: Alice, 7 years on the TC Bob, 6 years on the TC Carol, 5 years on the TC Dan, 3 years on the TC if Dan resigns: with "2-R", Alice expires with "2-R'", "2-S" and "2", Alice and Bob expire if Carol resigns: with "2-R", Alice expires with "2-R'", Alice expires (Carol's resignation count as a virtual expiration, because 5 years >> 4.5 years) with "2-S" and "2", Alice and Bob expire. if Bob resigns: with "2-R", Alice expires with "2-R'", Alice expires (Bob's resignation count as a virtual expiration, because 6 years >> 4.5 years) with "2-S", Alice expires (Bob's resignation count as an expiration, given that he would have expired anyway) with "2", Alice and Carol expire. if Alice resigns: with "2-R", Bob expires with "2-R'", Bob expires (Alice's resignation count as a virtual expiration, because 7 years >> 4.5 years) with "2-S", Bob expires (Alice's resignation count as an expiration, given that she would have expired anyway) with "2", Bob and Carol expire. 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: > This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to > me. FWIW, I'd say the opposite -- I'd say negotiating about the content of the ballot is what it looks like when you're trying to come to a consensus; and that having the folks who're interested enough in the topic come to a consensus (or as close to one as possible) before asking for the rest of the project to participate is a good thing. (Not that I disagree with the rest of your mail) Cheers, aj -- 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/20141126050530.ga16...@master.debian.org
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
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
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: [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
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: [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: [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: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 21/11/14 at 10:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > That said, I do believe we are almost in the realm of bikeshed/minutiae > here, and I would see as a problem having a ballot with the above 6 > options + FD. So I do hope we can converge/compromise, at least among > option proposers, on a single option. > > If we cannot, I'm personally going to call for second on *one* myself > (the one that I consider most convincing), after giving this list (and > -ctte) at least 1 week of advance notice. Others can propose and/or > second amendments, taking on their share of responsibility for having a > larger ballot. 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. I think that we are in agreement with the various pros and cons of the various options: maybe options proposers could write together a short document explaining how the various options compare, and that document could be on the vote page? Also, it would make sense to order options on the ballot using the amount of churn they would produce as a metric, so that the above two votes would be 12345 and 43215, rather than 34215 :) > Lucas: can I conclude from your summary that you do *not* have a 7th > alternative proposal in the working (which is what I was assuming thus > far)? At this point I don't plan to propose anything else. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SUMMARY] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:45:18AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I'm trying to summarize the thread here, so that others have an easy > way in. Thanks. > "soft": <20141119220621.ga31...@master.debian.org> > "max": <20141120192253.GA6120@jtriplet-mobl1> > "2": <20141120204606.ga30...@upsilon.cc> > "2-R": <20141119091345.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, formalized in > "2-R'": <20141119220621.ga31...@master.debian.org> > "2-S": <874mttkatj@desiato.home.uhoreg.ca> FWIW, I'm trying to collect at http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=tree one fully fleshed out proposal for each (reasonable) proposal on the table. At present, I've "2", "2-R", and "max" (which is in the fact the name for it that I've proposed to Josh, who has kindly submitted a patch for it). I don't have yet "soft", "2-S", and "2-R'" (it would be nice to have a better title for the latter one). Patches welcome to fill the above gaps. What to do should be trivial after reading README. "make" will do for you the Constitution diffing and GR text preparation. That said, I do believe we are almost in the realm of bikeshed/minutiae here, and I would see as a problem having a ballot with the above 6 options + FD. So I do hope we can converge/compromise, at least among option proposers, on a single option. If we cannot, I'm personally going to call for second on *one* myself (the one that I consider most convincing), after giving this list (and -ctte) at least 1 week of advance notice. Others can propose and/or second amendments, taking on their share of responsibility for having a larger ballot. Lucas: can I conclude from your summary that you do *not* have a 7th alternative proposal in the working (which is what I was assuming thus far)? 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
