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

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

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

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

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