Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > Could not follow your message enough to read. I may get back to it > later when I have more spoons. Oh I am very sorry. Raphael reminds me that column-formatted ascii text is going to be difficult for you (and your s

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally > create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at > cross-purposes still, because I don't think what I am suggesting wou

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > > I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally > > create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at > &

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally > create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at > cross-purposes still, because I don't think what I am suggesting wou

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: Ian> j...@joshtriplett.org writes ("Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> > At that point, I'd

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

j...@joshtriplett.org writes ("Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > At that point, I'd see it more like overrule maintainer pending longer > > discussion. That would have been a much better answer to #766708.

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): > For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff. Um, I'm confused. I did not suggest what I would think of `automated stuff'. That is, I am not suggesting there should be a robot, or an absolute rule. I

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:37:28AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > What I'm hearing is that there seems to be general support for TC > members calling for quick votes in cases like this. If I were doing it > I'd probably give 24 hours to comment on an interim ballot and then do a > CFV. It seems to

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): >> For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff. Ian> Um, I'm confused. I did

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"): >>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Ian> I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner > Ian> requests, be subject to a quick vote o

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Could not follow your message enough to read. I may get back to it later when I have more spoons.

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Hi all, could we re-focus this discussion on what qualities the current Technical Committee Members want to find in new TC members, please? I'm not saying that the "process about handling new requests to the TC" discussion is worthless to have, but it just feels like a hijack of that bug log.

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes: Didier> Hi all, could we re-focus this discussion on what qualities Didier> the current Technical Committee Members want to find in new Didier> TC members, please? My current thinking based on the input we got from TC

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:31:24PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Steve Langasek [2015-09-09 12:17 -0700]: > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, the > > > committee is incapable of making quick 'overrule

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Anthony Towns wrote: > Having an immediate vote (that often results in FD) everytime a new ctte > bug gets filed seems like a plausible approach to ensure people get a > quick initial response from the ctte though? eg: > > Bug#776708 arrived two hours ago. Let's vote! > > Resolution:

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

+++ Don Armstrong [2015-09-10 09:57 -0500]: > On Wed, 09 Sep 2015, Wookey wrote: > > Well, maybe. Maybe there were discussions to that effect I didn't see. > > In that case fair enough. The impression given was of a somewhat slow > > process and members not having time to review the situation, so

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015, Wookey wrote: > Well, maybe. Maybe there were discussions to that effect I didn't see. > In that case fair enough. The impression given was of a somewhat slow > process and members not having time to review the situation, so > preferring to punt, and not distinguishing between

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes: Josh> Assuming that the "often results in FD" holds true, and that Josh> this doesn't encourage snap judgements, this seems like a very Josh> good idea to me. I think that except in very special circumstances coming to

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes: > Josh> Assuming that the "often results in FD" holds true, and that > Josh> this doesn't encourage snap judgements, this seems like a very > Josh> good idea to

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Wookey wrote: > +++ Don Armstrong [2015-09-10 09:57 -0500]: > > Have the notes from the discussion at debconf been published yet? > > Not quite, but I'm working on them right now (I only got back a few > days ago). Should be out imminently (after giving a chance to comment >

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: > Sure, and I'd also argue that someone on the TC should believe that an > option other than FD should win before holding a vote. If anyone feels that an option besides FD could carry quickly, they should write a ballot quickly, and propose calling for

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "josh" == josh writes: josh> That's not a bad plan, actually. The three standard options josh> could be, in effect, "preliminary injunction against the josh> maintainer to avoid immediate harm, but we still need to talk josh> about this more",

tech-ctte decision/feedback speed (was: Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members)

(bug dropped, subject changed) On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:32:16PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "josh" == josh writes: > josh> That's not a bad plan, actually. The three standard options > josh> could be, in effect, "preliminary injunction against the >

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

+++ Didier 'OdyX' Raboud [2015-09-02 14:53 +0200]: > > One problem we have, I think, is that we allowed issues to get stalled > for quite long periods of time [0]. > What I really would hope new TC members could bring is more an ability > to react in bursts rather than a commitment to spend a

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Wookey" == Wookey writes: Wookey> +++ Steve Langasek [2015-09-09 12:17 -0700]: >> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: >> >> > So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, >> the > committee is incapable of

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Sep 09 2015, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > >> So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, the >> committee is incapable of making quick 'overrule unreasonableness' >> decisions. My overriding impression was

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, the > committee is incapable of making quick 'overrule unreasonableness' > decisions. My overriding impression was that those involved simply did > not have the time available

Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members

+++ Steve Langasek [2015-09-09 12:17 -0700]: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > So what I learned from this is that, as currently operating, the > > committee is incapable of making quick 'overrule unreasonableness' > > decisions. My overriding impression was that

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Don Armstrong writes: > I personally cannot reasonably dedicate more than an hour or two a week > to the CTTE, and I suspect that few people serving can either. 2 hours a week seems pretty consistent with what I think I've spent over the years. The initsystem debate was a

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: > I wonder if it would help to work from the other direction. What sort > of turn around time would we expect for bugs like the menu policy and > the aptitude maintainer issue? > > For an issue, someone has to put in a fair bit of leg work, going > through

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: > The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members > to have available for the TC. > > i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a > high probability of being related to insufficient bandwidth in TC > members. So,

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes: Don> I think attendance at meetings as well as participation in Don> threads, drafting, and voting is a requirement. Don> I think that this amounts to between 1-6 hours a month of work; Don> hopefully towards the low end of

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Package: tech-ctte Severity: minor User: tech-c...@packages.debian.org Hi all, following up after our latest tech-ctte IRC meeting [0], I propose to hereby coordinate our decision-making process towards proposing two candidate TC members to the DPL for a term starting in January next year. I've

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

I'd like to have a discussion about what we want from TC members before we make a call for nominations. The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members to have available for the TC. i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a high probability of being