Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:00:11PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>> > If people really want to add a tie breaking rule,
>>
>> I was mostly trying to get rid of the need for one.
>>
>> How about just saying that appointments must be done o
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably
> > > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much.
> >
> > How about:
>
> I don't think th
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:00:11PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> > If people really want to add a tie breaking rule,
>
> I was mostly trying to get rid of the need for one.
>
> How about just saying that appointments must be done one at a time?
You mean informally as
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> If people really want to add a tie breaking rule,
I was mostly trying to get rid of the need for one.
How about just saying that appointments must be done one at a time?
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hand
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably
> > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much.
>
> How about:
I don't think this is a problem that is worth solving with extra
complexity in the text of the Con
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Philip Hands writes:
>
> > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
> >>>
Philip Hands writes:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
>>> than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
>>>
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [...]
>> 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
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:44AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
> > >
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 09:51:44AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
> > than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
> >
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 02:44:42PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 6.2. Composition
> >
> > 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
> >usually have at least 4 members.
> > 2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[...]
> 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 Proj
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:12:13 +, Sam Hartman said:
[...]
> 3) 2-s I think would expire 1 person, because Ian was in s, right?
> 4) Anthony's new proposal would schedule the two most senior folks to
> expire at end of 2015, right? So you'd have up to 5 experienced folks
> through most of 201
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:41:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Hmm, are you saying that I should dislike option 4 too because if we
> had three resignations in the middle of next year we could get into
> the same situation unless some of the resignations were from the
> senior members? I actually
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
[quoting out of order]
>> I also believe that we should not treat the current situation as
>> exceptional. This will not be the last time we have a tough
>> issue before us that takes up a lot of emotional energy. It is
>> strongly i
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:12:13PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 1) 2 would expire two people at Jan 1, 2015, meaning the TC had only 3
> experienced folks on it.
[...]
> 4) Anthony's new proposal would schedule the two most senior folks to
> expire at end of 2015, right? So you'd have up to 5 expe
So, let's assume we'd adopted this proposal back in July or so.
And then things happened as they did, and we got the same three
resignations we did.
Perhaps we wouldn't have gotten those same three resignations. I
actually argue that it is a feature to encourage the people who resigned
to do so.
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
>> > - only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S
>> FWIW I think either of those deals with the concerns I raised, as it's
>> going to be way too much effort
* Anthony Towns , 2014-11-20, 21:17:
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.
would work as a description of that approach. Seems like a pret
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:17:11 +, Anthony Towns said:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum writes: > - only resignations from
>> people who would have been expired count in S FWIW I think either of
>> those deals with the concerns I raised, as it's
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 07:51:16PM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> > - only resignations from people who would have been expired count in S
> FWIW I think either of those deals with the concerns I raised, as it's
> going to be way too much effort to game that, and I cannot se
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 21:46:06 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
> +++ constitution.2-R.txt 2014-11-20 21:37:17.030425658 +0100
...
> +or 0 (if R >= 2). R is the number of former members of the
> +Technical Committee who have resigned, or been removed or
> +re
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:56:47PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ As a more general status update: as it seems that both the "2" and
> "2-R" model has significant support, I'm working on integrating "2-R"
> in my Git repo as a separate proposal, so that we can easily vote on
> both if t
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think
>> a lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for
>> the reason you give abov
Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> On 20/11/14 at 13:04 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli
>> said:
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a
>> >> lot
On 20/11/14 at 13:04 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a
> >> lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a
Hi Phil,
On 19/11/14 at 16:44 +, Philip Hands wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
>
> ...
> >> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
> >> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
> >> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:59:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a
>> lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for the
>> reason you give above.
> No
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:20:44AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Given that we've just had significant turnover in th TC, might it not make
> sense to have the first term expirations set for a year or two from now?
> That
> would keep this discussion well separated from any current turmoil an
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:33:28PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
> While I do think that 4-5 years is a good term length, I do think a
> lot of churn can be bad, and 2-r makes a lot of sense to me for the
> reason you give above.
Not sure if you've read it Sam, but just in case: I find Phil's example
On Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:33:28 PM Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
> Lucas> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread
> Lucas> over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire
> Lucas> the 2 most senior members - expire
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread
Lucas> over some time -- two options have been proposed: - expire
Lucas> the 2 most senior members - expire the 2-R most senior
Lucas> members, with R the number of resign
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> Technical Committee members are encouraged to serve for a term of
> between three and six years.
>
What, you seriously want to not increase the amount of Legalese in our
policy? The shame. :-P
> and six years as an upper bound since it gives a bit
> more flexibility than f
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:09:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that the "2-R" behaviour is more desirable, as it avoids 2 years
> without replacements in 2017 and 2018. Note that this isn't about the
> "2-R" rule as we could have the same behaviour by keeping the "2" rule
> and simply dr
On 19/11/14 at 19:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> > of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> > arguments below, but I d
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> arguments below, but I don't find them convincing. Specifically,
Note that with
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
...
>> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
>> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
>> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of expiring
>> the two most senior members?"
>> I thin
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:20:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> This is true only if you use the number of members as the measure for
> the "strength" of the TC. But if instead, you consider the sum of the
> experience of all members, more turnover due to resignations at a given
> point will have
On 19/11/14 at 11:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Now, let's assume that I'm a member of the TC, not among the two most
> > senior members, and that I feel a bit exhausted about that, not really
> > motivated, and not really
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread over some
> time -- two options have been proposed:
> - expire the 2 most senior members
> - expire the 2-R most senior members, with R the number of resignations
> over
On 19/11/14 at 10:13 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - The main change wrt the original text by Anthony is that the provision
> > of not expiring senior members if less-senior ones have resigned is
> > gone. In its stead, there is a provision that inhibits expiries from
> > reducing the CTTE
Le mercredi, 19 novembre 2014, 10.13:45 Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of
> expiring the two mos
On 18/11/14 at 11:33 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
>
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 09:44:43PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a
> > potential problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle.
> > I find your suggested wording not immediate, though, and I wonder if
> > a/ someone e
Hi,
On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The real reason to use an odd number is to avoid having to use the
> casting vote in the CTTE. Considering that we've used the casting vote
> exactly once in the entire history of Debian, I'm not sure that
> including this is worth the eff
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (FWIW, I _think_ I prefer an even number here... and despite labeling
> this a "game changer" I'm not sure I care that much about this
> change... arg and this might sound like it could be misunderstood
> again...)
The real reason to use an odd number is
Hi zack@,
Thanks for pushing this subject forward, it's a constitutional change I
would likely second.
Le mardi, 18 novembre 2014, 14.15:25 Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> > "provided /they/ were appointed" reads to me like it might mean that
> > if only one of them was appointed that long ago, m
Hi Don,
On Dienstag, 18. November 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> This patch is simple, but:
> -1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
> +1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 9 Developers, and should
[...]
> But if this is at all controversial, then we c
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "provided /they/ were appointed"
>
> This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a potential
> problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle. I find your
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 14:15:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
>7. Term limit:
> 1. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically
>reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the
>terms of the 2 most senior members automatically expire
>
Hi,
> 6.2. Composition
>
> 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
>usually have at least 4 members.
> 2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
>recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose
>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks for your feedback. New draft attached implementing (almost all)
the changes you suggested. The GR text is now also available at
http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=summary
which also c
On 18 November 2014 20:33, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
>
Looks good to me.
> + 3. At each review ro
Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
==
The Constitution is amended as follow
54 matches
Mail list logo