Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> 
> When replacing two members at a time, it might be a bit difficult to
> take that desirable balance into consideration. For example, if there are
> three candidates A - B - C in the shortlist, and A and B are basically
> clones in terms of profile, it would make sense to choose (A OR B) AND
> C. If the final decision is made via a vote, it could require to vote on
> pairs of candidates.

Hi Lucas,

actually, replacing two members at the time would give a good opportunity that
at least one of the members is not a western male that is is fully fluent
English speaker.  While there is nothing wrong with that profile by itself, we
are missing something when all the members have this profile.

It is good to value technical excellence, but the work to be done in structures
like the technical comittee needs other skills as well.  I think that somebody
who has a good capacity of synthesis, seeking advice, and understanding other
people's points of view would also be very qualified.  Said differently, I
think that we give too much importance on who the TC members are, as compared
as what they can do.  Let's remember that the TC has a long backlog, so
somebody who can learn and has time to do so will be more efficient than
somebody who knows but has no free time.

Rotating people by pairs would be a good opportunity to make it easier to
introduce diversity in the technical comittee.

(I am not suggesting to change the current proposal to ensure more rotations by
pairs).

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
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/20141110001313.gc13...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum  writes:

Lucas> Hi,
Lucas> On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
>> on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of
>> the N most senior members automatically expire provided they were
>> appointed at least 4.5 years ago. 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 twelve months.

Lucas> Something just occurred to me.

Lucas> Given the wide range of questions brought to the TC, it makes
Lucas> sense to have some diversity in the TC in order to have
Lucas> expertise at hand covering all the possible questions. Some
Lucas> members might be more familiar with say, porting issues,
Lucas> packages inter-dependencies issues, low-level stuff, desktop
Lucas> environments or might have a tendancy to approach problems
Lucas> with a sysadmin POV, or with a developer POV.

Lucas> When replacing two members at a time, it might be a bit
Lucas> difficult to take that desirable balance into
Lucas> consideration. For example, if there are three candidates A -
Lucas> B - C in the shortlist, and A and B are basically clones in
Lucas> terms of profile, it would make sense to choose (A OR B) AND
Lucas> C. If the final decision is made via a vote, it could require
Lucas> to vote on pairs of candidates.

I've been on the IETF nomcom which does have exactly this problem.
They do vote on slates of candidates with ranked ballots similar to
Debian's ballots.
"works fine."

More generally, this procedure does not remove flexibility  from how TC
members are appointed.
That process can be serialized say with two quick votes, or with slates,
or however the DPL and TC like.
Depending on the specifics it may be the case that one member is
technically appointed before another, although I'm sure any good rules
lawyer can give you 5-6 ways around that too.
I agree with your problem, but don't believe this proposal needs changes
to give the DPL and TC adequate mechanisms to address it.


-- 
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/014995e67c41-c5bfde03-ca99-411a-9ced-e66d2055de0d-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Lucas Nussbaum]

Hi,

On 21/10/14 at 17:41 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
>  Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
>  the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
>  most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
>  at least 4.5 years ago. 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 twelve
>  months.

Something just occurred to me.

Given the wide range of questions brought to the TC, it makes sense to
have some diversity in the TC in order to have expertise at hand
covering all the possible questions. Some members might be more familiar
with say, porting issues, packages inter-dependencies issues, low-level
stuff, desktop environments or might have a tendancy to approach
problems with a sysadmin POV, or with a developer POV.

When replacing two members at a time, it might be a bit difficult to
take that desirable balance into consideration. For example, if there are
three candidates A - B - C in the shortlist, and A and B are basically
clones in terms of profile, it would make sense to choose (A OR B) AND
C. If the final decision is made via a vote, it could require to vote on
pairs of candidates.

I don't know if this is a problem that can be ignored (because so far,
we have always found members with a wide range of expertise) or one that
should be addressed somehow. One way to address it would be to serialize
the process by re-evaluating membership every 6 months rather than
annually, and expiring at most one member at a time. This would add
overhead (more frequent renewal processes), but OTOH, once the TC gets
used to the fact that frequent renewals are needed, there are ways to
optimize the process (such as using the previous list of candidates as a
starting point, rather than starting from scratch each time).

Lucas


-- 
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/20141109140839.ga16...@xanadu.blop.info

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 04/11/14 at 15:54 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> - me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
>   least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
>   I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
>   on that specific matter. No one did. If you are interested in this
>   topic, please do.

FTR, I have a preference for the mathematical one, as I find it easier to
understand.

Lucas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Tue, November 4, 2014 15:54, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the meantime, here is where I think people could help with the
> preparation work that needs to be completed before sending out a call
> for seconds (if one wants to minimize the risk of fuckups, that is):
>
> - me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
>   least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
>   I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
>   on that specific matter. No one did. If you are interested in this
>   topic, please do.

For me, I can imagine why people didn't feel the need to reply to that
question. I really don't mind whether it's formulated in a mathematical
style or in English; it's the core substance that counts. Either
formulation is acceptable. Given the lack of replies, it seems that
there's not much strong preference either way with other -vote readers.

Since you seem to have an opinion about it, perhaps you just pick one?

> - I've mentioned before that it would be nice to *explicitly* address
>   the ctte and ask them what they think about the GR text. Of course it
>   would be inappropriate to offer the ctte a sort of "veto" power on
>   this GR, and I'm fully convinced they'd refuse such an offer. But this
>   GR has the potential of being confrontational and cause tension
>   between project members and tech-ctte members. I think that risk
>   should be minimized as much as feasible. A formal "what do you think
>   of this?" question to the tech-ctte is really the bare minimum that
>   the proposers of this GR should do.
>
>   This item is very actionable: go forward and ask the ctte, summarize
>   answers received, report back to -project. (Although it has a
>   dependency on the previous item.)

We're certain that committee members are subscribed to debian-vote,
members have participated in this thread, and the committee as a whole is
well aware of this discussion, as evidenced from their last meeting notes.
Therefore there has been (and still is) ample room for their input on the
proposal and we need not worry that they are obvlivious of it going on.
Requiring some extra round of querying and summarising therefore just
seems like a request for busywork.


Cheers,
This


-- 
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/05f7192b88b9f334fa7e18b0a1b6cdec.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:34:13AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I've briefly discussed this off list with Sam Hartman, who proposed a
> sensible rationale (although not necessarily the same Antony had in
> mind). The rationale is avoiding suddenly under staffing the ctte too
> much, making it non functional.

Personally, I'm not terribly worried about the size of the ctte; I don't
think having just a couple of active members would be much less effective
than havin eight active members. (Though having only a couple of members
might significantly lower the odds of having any /active/ members)

> I understand the concern, but I think it could be addressed better. For
> instance, one could say that expiries of "young" members inhibit the
> expiry of an "old" member only if the latter expiry would reduce the
> size of the ctte below 4 members (which is some sort of minimally viable
> threshold for a function ctte, according to Constitution ?6.2.1). In all
> other situations, "old" member expiries proceed unaffected by how many
> other members of the ctte stepped down in the previous year.

That sounds plausible; I'm not convinced it's a problem worth solving
though. The downside of solving it is that it makes things more
complicated, and potentially introduces annoying loopholes or bad
incentives.

The only bad incentive I see off hand is that if there were only four
members then the oldest members would be discouraged from appointing new
members, because that could force them to expire and otherwise they could
stay on indefinitely. But that's counterbalanced by the clause letting the
DPL appoint two new ctte members without even having to consult the ctte.

But if the DPL's going to exercise that power anyway, why have any
exception at all for resignations? Just have the two oldest members
expire each year, provided they've served at least four years?

*oldest = longest serving

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/20141109055518.gb7...@master.debian.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:54:26PM +0100, 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.
>   Antony: can you remind us what the rationale is?
>   Others: how do you feel about that?

When first posted, there was concern that continuity is a good thing and
having a large proportion of the ctte expire at the same time would be
a bad thing:

 - Tollef: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00057.html
 - Stefano: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00059.html
 - Brian: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00082.html

So based on Russ's comment of:

 "The primary goal of this sort of system is to rotate fresh people
  through the decision-making body."
   - https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00055.html

I figured it might work to switch from the goal of "constant max term" to
"constant rate of change over":

 "If we want the opportunity to appoint new members regularly, rather
  than expire old members per se, we could just say that: "on July 1st,
  the two longest serving ctte members' term expires" to end up with
  (on average) four year terms... Probably needs some tweaking though
  -- maybe it ought only apply if nobody's resigned in the previous 12
  months or something.
   - https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/msg00061.html

They're both reasonable "principles" in my opinion; the only question
between them is how you balance continuity/disruption against rate
of progress. I don't personally have much of a preference either way.

Note that the "worst case" scenario would be something like:

 - Keith, Colin, Russ, Don, Steve, Andi all quit from the tech ctte
   effective Dec 30th
 - Jan 1st rolls around
 - Are Bdale and Ian removed?

The "can't rejoin for 12 months" rule would prevent any of them from being
immediately reappointed, and the tech ctte would have to be reconstituted
from all new members by the DPL at that point. Is it better to have some
continuity in the form of Bdale and Ian still being around?

(I don't really have a preference; maybe if they knew Bdale and Ian
would disappear too, that'd be enough to prevent a couple of other
members from quitting in the first place)

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/20141109053508.ga7...@master.debian.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Using a phone to reply is probably not such a good idea :-( 

Am 07. November 2014 10:34:13 MEZ, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli :
>I think the above would be a good compromise, although I haven't took
>the time to properly formalize it yet (so I might have overlooked nasty
>corner cases).

Do you think you will be able to formalize it soon-ish?  I think that bringing 
such a change in place is necessary,  better sooner than later. 

Thanks, 
Bernd 

>
>Cheers.

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.


-- 
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/6488cf07-bf03-4afe-ae6e-b9f05ea0a...@bzed.de

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Am 07. November 2014 10:34:13 MEZ, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli :

>I think the above would be a good compromise, although I haven't took
>the time to properly formalize it yet (so I might have overlooked nasty
>corner case
>
>Cheers.

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.


-- 
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/c7a52500-944f-4e6f-93d5-951031e21...@bzed.de

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:59:07PM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> >   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.
> >
> >   Antony: can you remind us what the rationale is?
> Yes, please.

I've briefly discussed this off list with Sam Hartman, who proposed a
sensible rationale (although not necessarily the same Antony had in
mind). The rationale is avoiding suddenly under staffing the ctte too
much, making it non functional.

I understand the concern, but I think it could be addressed better. For
instance, one could say that expiries of "young" members inhibit the
expiry of an "old" member only if the latter expiry would reduce the
size of the ctte below 4 members (which is some sort of minimally viable
threshold for a function ctte, according to Constitution §6.2.1). In all
other situations, "old" member expiries proceed unaffected by how many
other members of the ctte stepped down in the previous year.

I think the above would be a good compromise, although I haven't took
the time to properly formalize it yet (so I might have overlooked nasty
corner cases).

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

[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

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

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. 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 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.

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 Anthony Towns!

On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few years,
> and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing resolutions
> (particularly constitutional changes!) to people who have been. So, as
> I've said before, happy to offer a second, but I don't expect to make
> an actual proposal.

I have been quite active the past few years, and I do think your proposal
is good and needed. I'm not very interested in the procedural formalia
though, so if not for yourself could you please push this forward and
propose it on my behalf?
(You seem to have the procedure nailed down and you also seem to be able
to come up with a more suitable proposal text then I would.)

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.

Thanks for working on the initial proposal anyway. Much appreciated!

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/20141105144338.ga1...@fatal.se

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Matthew Vernon]

Brian Gupta  writes:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Sam Hartman  wrote:
> >> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:
> >
> > I'd find arguments of the form "I personally would find it confusing/bad
> > to have both going on because ..."  more compelling than arguments of
> > the form "it would generally be confusing/bad."  What I'm saying is that
> > I'd be a lot more sympathetic to delay more than a week or so if people
> > come forward and say they personally would like to delay more than if
> > they say that some nebulous we/it would be a good idea to delay more.
> 
> I'll say that I agree with the TC members who have spoken up.. I am a
> subscriber to -vote, and am still trying to sort out how I'm going to
> vote, but I am just burnt from all the email traffic.

Me too. I'm afraid I'm spending too much time and effort tracking the
-vote list at the moment, and I'd like a break!

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.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/5bfvdxy9j4@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

> "Andreas" == Andreas Henriksson  writes:

Andreas> Hello Anthony Towns!
Andreas> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 03:10:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Andreas> [...]
>> I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few
>> years, and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing
>> resolutions (particularly constitutional changes!) to people who
>> have been. So, as I've said before, happy to offer a second, but
>> I don't expect to make an actual proposal.
Andreas> The sooner the better IMHO. I find it very weird that
Andreas> tech-ctte members apparently recognize the need but still
Andreas> want to be force-rotated rather then voluntarily doing
Andreas> it. On the other hand, I guess you don't end up in a
Andreas> committee unless you absolutely love procedural formalia
Andreas> and want to see as much as possible of it.

I think with Lucas's proposal to handle the find round of term
expirations immediately if we don't get this approved by January 1,
there's a lot less time pressure.

Also, I think Stefano did a great job of summarizing the things he
thinks needs to be done.

Stefano, I'm happy to sign up to put together a version of the proposal
with the mathematical formulation and a paragraph about January 1 2015
for people to think about.
I may get it out next week, but will definitely do it the week after if
not.
I'd be delighted if after reviewing and discussion you wanted to
formally propose a resolution so I don't have to:-)  Seconding  and
voting would be lots easier.


-- 
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/0149807422d1-bc9e3630-7f1c-414a-be10-7194ccd8682b-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 04/11/14 at 02:16 +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:
> 
> >> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
> >> periods on debian-vote is problematic.
> 
> Don> Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well.
> 
> Don> I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this
> Don> amendment significantly before January 1st, which presumably
> Don> means having it formally proposed well before December 3rd.
> 
> OK.  So there is some time pressure.

Of course, it would be better if this GR could be passed before January
1st, 2015. However, we could avoid having to rush things by simply
including a paragraph that says something such as:
  
   If this GR proposal is passed after 2015-01-01, then the first
   automatic review of membership of the Technical Committee happens
   immediately.

With the current wording of a 4.5 years limit, this also doesn't change
anything for the future unless we delay it so much that there's no time
to appoint new members before 2015-07-01.

Lucas


-- 
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/20141104154230.ga22...@xanadu.blop.info

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Ian Jackson]

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> I'd find arguments of the form "I personally would find it confusing/bad
> to have both going on because ..."  more compelling than arguments of
> the form "it would generally be confusing/bad."  What I'm saying is that
> I'd be a lot more sympathetic to delay more than a week or so if people
> come forward and say they personally would like to delay more than if
> they say that some nebulous we/it would be a good idea to delay more.

Firstly, I realise that I have an obvious bias here.

But, speaking entirely personally: I would like to engage properly
with the discussion on the details of the maximum term limit.  But I
don't have the energy for that right now.  I need to limit the
proportion of my Debian effort that goes into politics, for my own
sanity if for no other reason.

So just to be entirely clear: you are completely entitled to push on
with this now, and I understand why you want to.  But you did ask for
my personal opinion, and my preference would be to wait.

Ian.


-- 
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/21592.61352.932288.466...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
> think this is an important issue.

To be frank, I find quite odd to call something in Debian "stalled" on
the basis that it didn't complete in 2 weeks. Especially considering
that:

(a) the issue has been arguably "stalled" for 6 months, revived at
DebConf, and advanced *a lot* precisely over the past few weeks
(thanks to Antony's work); and

(b) there are actionable items that have been discussed in this
thread. Working on them would be much more productive than
threatening to send out a call for seconds if nothing happens in
what I consider to be a very short time frame for Debian discussion
standards

(As an aside, giving some of the clumsiness of the Debian GR
process, I think it's never a good idea to send a GR call for
seconds before sending a complete draft to -vote and let it linger
for at least 1 week without having to accept any modification
whatsoever to the text, not even editorial ones. Been there, done
that. YMMV.)

That said, I'm interested in this GR, but I've had troubles finding time
to push the discussion forward. But I do agree with the apparent
consensus in the "timing" sub-thread: there are no good reasons for
having the term limit GR happen before the ongoing GR is over, and there
are good reasons not to do so.


In the meantime, here is where I think people could help with the
preparation work that needs to be completed before sending out a call
for seconds (if one wants to minimize the risk of fuckups, that is):

- me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
  least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
  I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
  on that specific matter. No one did. If you are interested in this
  topic, please do.

- I've mentioned before that it would be nice to *explicitly* address
  the ctte and ask them what they think about the GR text. Of course it
  would be inappropriate to offer the ctte a sort of "veto" power on
  this GR, and I'm fully convinced they'd refuse such an offer. But this
  GR has the potential of being confrontational and cause tension
  between project members and tech-ctte members. I think that risk
  should be minimized as much as feasible. A formal "what do you think
  of this?" question to the tech-ctte is really the bare minimum that
  the proposers of this GR should do.

  This item is very actionable: go forward and ask the ctte, summarize
  answers received, report back to -project. (Although it has a
  dependency on the previous item.)

- 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.

  Antony: can you remind us what the rationale is?
  Others: how do you feel about that?

> My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped.

That's great, because I care about it too!  But I think that keeping
track of actionable items, reminding the community of them, and acting
on them is a much more effective way of ensuring progress in Debian than
ultimatums.

With many thanks for reviving this thread,
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

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:52:39PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Sune" == Sune Vuorela  writes:
> 
> 
> Sune> I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression
> Sune> was that - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a
> Sune> good idea - that they should push the thing forward (if no one
> Sune> else does) - but they should wait with doing it until the
> Sune> current GR is over
> 
> nod.  My concern is one of process, not any strong disagreement with
> opinions expressed.
> Neil's message (and note he's also not a TC member) represented things
> as a decision having been made in that TC meeting.

Indeed, apologies, I was spending about 4 hours last night setting up
the current vote. The intention was to try and re-assure that it's not
been forgotton about!

> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
> periods on debian-vote is problematic.  For myself, I think midway
> through the voting period of the current GR will clear up this list
> enough that starting to collect seconds on a new GR seems fine, but I'm
> happy to delay beyond that if a significant number of people think
> that's valuable.

I'd personally prefer it happening after this vote is concluded, but
will endevour to set up a GR if that's what happens.

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Anthony Towns]

Hey Sam,

On 4 November 2014 05:00, Sam Hartman  wrote:
> This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
> think this is an important issue.
> My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
> you received.

I haven't been particularly active in Debian over the past few years,
and my feeling is that it's better to leave proposing resolutions
(particularly constitutional changes!) to people who have been. So, as
I've said before, happy to offer a second, but I don't expect to make
an actual proposal.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns 


-- 
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/CAJS_LCVHB=M5wYrMapkTrJ8E850hVrM_SFNW=dq4qfyt4re...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Brian Gupta]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Sam Hartman  wrote:
>> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:
>
> >> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
> >> periods on debian-vote is problematic.
>
> Don> Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well.
>
> Don> I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this
> Don> amendment significantly before January 1st, which presumably
> Don> means having it formally proposed well before December 3rd.
>
> OK.  So there is some time pressure.
> I personally  don't see any problem with that going on while the CFV for
> the previous resolution is in place.
> So, I think my comment about acting in a week or so seems about right.
>
> I'd find arguments of the form "I personally would find it confusing/bad
> to have both going on because ..."  more compelling than arguments of
> the form "it would generally be confusing/bad."  What I'm saying is that
> I'd be a lot more sympathetic to delay more than a week or so if people
> come forward and say they personally would like to delay more than if
> they say that some nebulous we/it would be a good idea to delay more.
>
>
> --Sam

I'll say that I agree with the TC members who have spoken up.. I am a
subscriber to -vote, and am still trying to sort out how I'm going to
vote, but I am just burnt from all the email traffic.

Starting another GR process right now, would almost definitely push me
into that camp of DDs that tends to ignores voting.

IMHO, the lists definitely do need a cool down period, and am grateful
the TC members aren't pushing this right now.

-Brian


-- 
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/cacfairzw8fkrx6sbyw6qavhcseyg_siajc9m+5thhossvah...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:

>> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
>> periods on debian-vote is problematic.

Don> Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well.

Don> I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this
Don> amendment significantly before January 1st, which presumably
Don> means having it formally proposed well before December 3rd.

OK.  So there is some time pressure.
I personally  don't see any problem with that going on while the CFV for
the previous resolution is in place.
So, I think my comment about acting in a week or so seems about right.

I'd find arguments of the form "I personally would find it confusing/bad
to have both going on because ..."  more compelling than arguments of
the form "it would generally be confusing/bad."  What I'm saying is that
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to delay more than a week or so if people
come forward and say they personally would like to delay more than if
they say that some nebulous we/it would be a good idea to delay more.


--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/01497896b654-439958c7-86f7-4d2b-937d-47038d396894-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Sam Hartman wrote:
> A TC meeting is a meeting where only the TC members are speaking.
> That's not really the right forum for such a decision to be taken.

Just to echo Russ's comments, all that we really discussed was that as
the CTTE, we weren't going to press forward for this to happen while the
other GR was being actively discussed/voted on.

The CTTE has no power to stop anyone (including those on the CTTE) from
proposing, seconding, or discussing this amendment.

> Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
> periods on debian-vote is problematic.

Right; that's what we seemed to agree on as well.

I think that we can all agree that we'd like a decision on this
amendment significantly before January 1st, which presumably means
having it formally proposed well before December 3rd.


-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

I really wanted to talk to her.
I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit.
 -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294


-- 
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/20141104002700.ge23...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Russ Allbery]

Neil McGovern  writes:

> This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it was agreed
> to defer this until the current GR has quietened down. See
> http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html

I think we were only deferring pushing it forward ourselves.  We obviously
have no authority to make that decision for anyone else.

I do think that two GRs running at the same time may be a bit much, and
that the discussion can get lost in the noise, so I'm in favor of waiting
until the current discussion has died down, but that's not some sort of
ruling or something we can request, just a personal preference stated
without my TC hat on.

-- 
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/87d293q57z@hope.eyrie.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Julien Cristau]

On Mon, Nov  3, 2014 at 19:41:16 +, Neil McGovern wrote:

> Hi Sam,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
> > think this is an important issue.
> > 
> > My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
> > you received.
> > 
> > nontrivial ongoing discussion at that time, I am likely to propose a
> > resolution based on your text.  Obviously if between now and then
> > someone makes it clear why we should delay or something like that I'll
> > listen and consider the input.
> > 
> > My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped.
> > 
> 
> This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it was agreed
> to defer this until the current GR has quietened down. See
> http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html
> 
I hope the project membership is not bound by tech-ctte irc meetings.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

> "Sune" == Sune Vuorela  writes:


Sune> I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression
Sune> was that - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a
Sune> good idea - that they should push the thing forward (if no one
Sune> else does) - but they should wait with doing it until the
Sune> current GR is over

nod.  My concern is one of process, not any strong disagreement with
opinions expressed.
Neil's message (and note he's also not a TC member) represented things
as a decision having been made in that TC meeting.
A TC meeting is a meeting where only the TC members are speaking.
That's not really the right forum for such a decision to be taken.  It's
a fine forum to have a discussion, and it's great if those who
participated in that discussion bring that input to the larger group.

Personally, I agree that having multiple active discussion/second
periods on debian-vote is problematic.  For myself, I think midway
through the voting period of the current GR will clear up this list
enough that starting to collect seconds on a new GR seems fine, but I'm
happy to delay beyond that if a significant number of people think
that's valuable.


-- 
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/014977a54107-749ce428-367a-433a-b1d6-f726fd155af1-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2014-11-03, Sam Hartman  wrote:
> I'm really kind of frustrated and disappointed reading your message, and
> I expect it's just a side effect of some wording choice here.
> It sounds like what you're saying is that the TC has decided to defer
> the discussions of TC term limits, but not to bring this forward or
> explain their reasons on debian-vote.

I read the logs from the tech-ctte meeting, and my impression was that
 - people in tech-ctte thinks that maximum terms are a good idea
 - that they should push the thing forward (if no one else does)
 - but they should wait with doing it until the current GR is over

I do think it is right to not have too many GR discussions running at
the same time to ensure that the project members have enough mental
bandwidth to figure out what to vote.

/Sune
 - who would prefer if a max term wasn't needed by law, but the
   tech-ctte members by convention stepped back after some periods of
   time by themselves


-- 
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/m38s2k$rcb$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

> "Neil" == Neil McGovern  writes:

Neil> This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it
Neil> was agreed to defer this until the current GR has quietened
Neil> down. See
Neil> 
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html

Hi.
I'm really kind of frustrated and disappointed reading your message, and
I expect it's just a side effect of some wording choice here.
It sounds like what you're saying is that the TC has decided to defer
the discussions of TC term limits, but not to bring this forward or
explain their reasons on debian-vote.

  I don't really think it's appropriate for the TC to decide what a
non-TC member (ajt) does about a discussion on debian-project,
especially when that discussion is *about* the TC.

If the TC as a whole or individual members about the TC have input to
the broader community, I think it's fine for them to share that.

However, I think that to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest,
they should share that on debian-vote rather than simply having the
discussion die.  Also, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the TC or any
members with opinions made it clear they were giving input to the
project, not actually acting within some area where the TC has decision
making authority.


-- 
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/0149773d76ee-ee204961-60bc-49be-a488-82f77593fd00-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Neil McGovern]

Hi Sam,

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
> think this is an important issue.
> 
> My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
> you received.
> 
> nontrivial ongoing discussion at that time, I am likely to propose a
> resolution based on your text.  Obviously if between now and then
> someone makes it clear why we should delay or something like that I'll
> listen and consider the input.
> 
> My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped.
> 

This was discussed at the last tech-ctte irc meeting, and it was agreed
to defer this until the current GR has quietened down. See
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-10-30-17.00.log.html

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Sam Hartman]

Hi.
This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
think this is an important issue.

My recommendation is that you propose a resolution based on the comments
you received.


If a resolution isn't proposed within a week or so and there isn't some
nontrivial ongoing discussion at that time, I am likely to propose a
resolution based on your text.  Obviously if between now and then
someone makes it clear why we should delay or something like that I'll
listen and consider the input.

My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped.

--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/01497707e3fd-2d6946c6-3431-4a77-a7e8-e3250b98980a-000...@email.amazonses.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Svante Signell]

Hello,

Please don't forget to make the number of members in the CTTE an odd
number too, either by adding or removing one member. This was shortly
discussed especially in:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=+636783#180 onwards
and summarized in #210.

Thanks!


-- 
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/1414056135.15088.101.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
> part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
> cases of doubt." -- from appendix B in the constitution.

OK, I didn't remember that (documented) convention. No objection then.

> Take the current members, Ian, Bdale, Steve, Andi, Russ and Don are all
> over five years and are in roughly that order of seniority iirc. On Jan 1st
> 2015, assuming no resignations, then:
[...]
> ie, I guess I was thinking that were all considered simultaneously so
> ordering wasn't relevant.

In fact, I don't mind simultaneity, I just wanted to be sure it wasn't
something that had been overlooked. I do observe that simultaneity might
result in more expiries than in scenarios in which you either define a
specific ordering, or members that would have been in the expiration set
voluntarily step down before January 1st.

> Oh, hey, since there's already math in the constitution, maybe it would
> work to say something like:
> 
>  Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
>  the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
>  most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
>  at least 4.5 years ago. 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 twelve
>  months.
> 
>  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.
> 
> ? 
> 
> It's getting closer to source code than English at that point, but...

In fact, I found the above mathematical formulation quite nice, and
clearer than the English wording. But it might be just me. Others?

> (I'm not sure the second paragraph there is actually needed; could
> probably just rely on the secretary or the ctte itself to interpret
> "seniority" and disambiguate "appointment" sensibly.)

Better safe than sorry, I'd rather keep it in.  Even if it were only to
spare the Project a couple of threads on "hey, but what does it
*actually* mean to be ``more senior''", it would be worth it :-)

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

[Bdale Garbee]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
>> doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
>> nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
>> nominees at all).
>
> In that event the ctte would have 6 people rather than 8 for 12 months,
> at which point the two expirees could be reappointed. (Though another
> 2 might expire then, keeping it at 6 members)

While not fatal, that doesn't seem particularly desirable.

> I don't think there's a shortage of potential candidates
> in Debian, so on that score I don't think it's likely there won't be
> sufficient acceptable nominees. 

I agree.

Bdale


pgpRf5MYblnHy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:34:28AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
> doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
> nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
> nominees at all).

In that event the ctte would have 6 people rather than 8 for 12 months,
at which point the two expirees could be reappointed. (Though another
2 might expire then, keeping it at 6 members)

> Not allowing people to be reappointed if there are nominees and they're
> just not acceptable may be a design goal, but not allowing reappointment
> if there are no nominees does not.

I could easily see "acceptability" being defined so that automatic
reappointment is a matter of course ("they're the most experienced
candidates!", "we know them and trust them!"). Avoiding reappointmnet
as a matter of course is a design goal.

For more generous definitions of acceptability ("really smart", "knows
lots about Debian", "willing to work in a team", "can deal well with
disagreements"), I don't think there's a shortage of potential candidates
in Debian, so on that score I don't think it's likely there won't be
sufficient acceptable nominees. YMMV, of course. (And maybe "willing
to put up with the conflict and BS that makes its way to the tech ctte"
would narrow the field more).

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/20141021175436.gb18...@master.debian.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> FWIW, I found the original wording about this part from
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/06/msg00026.html
> much easier to follow, but it might be a non-native speaker failure on
> my part.

Hmm, aren't a majority of Debian devs non-native English speakers anyway? 

I was worried that the "two or more .. members have either X or Y"
phrasing might be ambiguous if there was one member who matched X and
a different member who matched Y.

> > +When the Committee is fully populated, it is expected this
> > +will result in a turnover of 1 or 2 members each year, whether by
> > +resignation or term expiry, while allowing senior members to stay
> > +on if a junior member resigns.
> Does this really belong to the constitutional text? 

"Text marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form
part of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in
cases of doubt." -- from appendix B in the constitution.

> It is good to
> document the underlying principle/expectation of this change, but having
> it in the GR text (but still not in the constitution itself) would be
> good enough IMO.

Given the convoluted wording, I think it makes sense to have a bit of
an explanation in the text itself, and not just in the GR.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:43:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > +At this time, any member of the
> > +Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
> > +prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire.
> About this, I wonder if the text should specify in which order expiries
> are to be processed, e.g., most recently appointed members last.

Take the current members, Ian, Bdale, Steve, Andi, Russ and Don are all
over five years and are in roughly that order of seniority iirc. On Jan 1st
2015, assuming no resignations, then:

 - Andi: 2x current, longer serving members (Bdale and Ian)
 - Bdale: 1x current, longer serving member (Ian) --> expired
 - Colin: under 4.5 years
 - Don: 4x current, longer serving members (Bdale, Ian, Steve, Andi)
 - Ian: no longer serving members --> expired
 - Russ: same as Don
 - Steve: same as Andi

ie, I guess I was thinking that were all considered simultaneously so
ordering wasn't relevant.

There could be a minor cascade effect though I guess. If, say, Colin
resigns, you might get something like:

 - 2014-10-23: Colin resigns to found forkubuntu.org
 - 2015-01-01: Ian's term expires
 - 2016-01-01: Bdale, Steve, Andi's terms expire
 - 2017-01-01: Russ and Don's terms expire
 - 2018-01-01: no one expires!
 - 2019-01-01: Keith's term expires

because while there'd be three people's terms expiring in 2016, both
Andi and Steve would only have Bdale as more senior, since they were
appointed at the same time.

Oh, hey, since there's already math in the constitution, maybe it would
work to say something like:

 Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed on
 the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the terms of the N
 most senior members automatically expire provided they were appointed
 at least 4.5 years ago. 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 twelve
 months.

 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.

? 

It's getting closer to source code than English at that point, but...

(I'm not sure the second paragraph there is actually needed; could
probably just rely on the secretary or the ctte itself to interpret
"seniority" and disambiguate "appointment" sensibly.)

(I believe the above would declare Steve senior to Andi, and Don senior
to Russ)

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/20141021174128.ga18...@master.debian.org

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> +At this time, any member of the
> +Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
> +prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire.

About this, I wonder if the text should specify in which order expiries
are to be processed, e.g., most recently appointed members last.

It seems to me that without a pre-defined ordering you might have
scenarios in which, in the absence of consensus about who should step
down, more members than desired will automatically expire. (Although
that might be by design.)

And yes, this might be seen as procedural paranoia, but the Constitution
is precisely the place where one wants to be paranoid.

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

[Don Armstrong]

I think rotation is a good idea. My main minor concern is that it
doesn't allow reappointing members to the CTTE if there are no
nominees whom the DPL and CTTE finds acceptable (or even if there are no
nominees at all).

Not allowing people to be reappointed if there are nominees and they're
just not acceptable may be a design goal, but not allowing reappointment
if there are no nominees does not.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Anthony Towns wrote:
> +   
> +A Developer is not eligible to be appointed to the Technical Committee
> +if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
> +   
> +

[...]

> +
> +   
> +Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
> +on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, any member of the
> +Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
> +prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire. However,
> +a member's term may be extended until the next review provided

Probably should be "will be extended" instead of "may be extended".

> +there are at least two other members, each of whom who either (a)
> +are a current, longer serving member of Technical Committee, or (b)
> +resigned from the Technical Committee, or were removed or replaced
> +since the previous review.
> +
> +When the Committee is fully populated, it is expected this
> +will result in a turnover of 1 or 2 members each year, whether by
> +resignation or term expiry, while allowing senior members to stay
> +on if a junior member resigns.
> +   
>  

There was also some discussion of this during the CTTE meeting too:

http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-07-31-16.58.log.html

Thanks for drafting this.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of
entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public
attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle
had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had
manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence
Point.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228


-- 
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/20141021153428.gm28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Moving from -project. Reference:
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054
> 
> Like I said, I'd rather provide a second than make a proposal, but at
> debconf Stefano [0] said he'd appreciate some sample wording, so
> here's what I came up with, based on where I was thinking when the
> thread on -project sputtered out.
>
> [0] I'm pretty sure it was Stefano, my memory of that night's possibly
> kinda blurry...

Yeah, that was me. Thanks a lot for this draft!

In general, it looks good to me and I'd be happy to second something
along these lines. A few comments:

> +   
> +Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
> +on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, any member of the
> +Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
> +prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire. However,
> +a member's term may be extended until the next review provided
> +there are at least two other members, each of whom who either (a)
> +are a current, longer serving member of Technical Committee, or (b)
> +resigned from the Technical Committee, or were removed or replaced
> +since the previous review.

FWIW, I found the original wording about this part from

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/06/msg00026.html

much easier to follow, but it might be a non-native speaker failure on
my part.  Still, I hereby AOL your call for simpler phrasing here :)

> +When the Committee is fully populated, it is expected this
> +will result in a turnover of 1 or 2 members each year, whether by
> +resignation or term expiry, while allowing senior members to stay
> +on if a junior member resigns.

Does this really belong to the constitutional text? It is good to
document the underlying principle/expectation of this change, but having
it in the GR text (but still not in the constitution itself) would be
good enough IMO.

> I know there's been some talk that maybe this is something the ctte
> should just handle themselves; my view is that it's better to have
> something that just takes care of it in a "good enough" way without
> having to take specific actions (which can be missed or
> procrastinated) or having the people involved having to think about it
> in detail (whether that means bikeshedding the process or weight it
> against "oh, but I have a couple more things I just have to do while
> on the ctte").

Very much agreed.  Nonetheless, before formally calling for seconds, it
would be nice to solicit comments from current tech-ctte members on the
latest and greatest draft of the GR text.

Thanks again,
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

[Sam Hartman]

I support this proposal, and if that was intented as a formal proposal
I'd probably second.

I'd also support:

* making this something the TC decides for themselves with your wording
  as an initial condition

I do think rotation in bodies like the TC is really good both for the
members' personal development and for the project as a whole.
I have experience with this in a number of volunteer and standards
organizations and I think it works out well to have this sort of
rotation.

--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/0149331d4496-2ab6c505-1661-47c3-979e-2a430b3f3352-000...@email.amazonses.com