On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 09:36:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:53:10PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > An exception to the uniformity of the effects of transitional measures
> > is "max". I haven't touched it partly because it doesn't seem to have
> > received mu
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:53:10PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> An exception to the uniformity of the effects of transitional measures
> is "max". I haven't touched it partly because it doesn't seem to have
> received much attention as of lately, and partly because it seems to
> actually have
On 21/11/14 at 10:45 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There are three different variants that consider resignations/removals:
>
> "2-R": <20141119091345.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info>, formalized in
><20141120204606.ga30...@upsilon.cc>
> expire the 2-R most senior members, with R the number of
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to
> me.
FWIW, I'd say the opposite -- I'd say negotiating about the content of the
ballot is what it looks like when you're trying to come to a consensus;
and that
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:01:40PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I can't find the reference right now, but IIRC we've discussed this
> > > during the init system coupling GR and I don't think it's possible: you
> > > are DPL, if you introduce an amendment, it's automatically accepted. I
>
Dear all,
you can find attached a 3rd, hopefully final, iteration of the CTTE
term limit GR proposals. It is now plural, as the discussion has made
clear that there are alternative models that people might want to see on
the ballot as separate options.
I attach 4 alternative versions of the GR,
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
TL;DR: the latest complete drafts of proposals 2, 2-R, and 2-S are
available at:
https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/
please have a look if you care about any of them.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:57:32PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> A transitional measure does not have any effe
> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
Stefano> - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the
Stefano> first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above
Stefano> (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation
Stefano> among them)
Stefano
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
> >>>
On 23/11/14 at 12:32 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will
> > propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option
> > compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Our voting system is designed to handle this case just fine, and the
> only drawback is that it makes the voting slightly more complex
> because project members have to compare two options, and not just
> approve/disapprove one -- bu
Hi,
On 22/11/14 at 12:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be:
> > 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD
> > I'm assuming your vote would be:
> > 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-22, 12:35:
As a transitional measure, the term of any Committee member who has
served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one of the two most
senior members as of January 1st, 2014 is set to expire one month after
this GR is passed.
s/who has/who had/,
s/
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, 22 Nov 2014 12:35:28 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli said:
[...]
> For reference, I'm attaching the current version of the 2-S GR text.
> I'm still waiting to see if people object to that idea, but the only
> remaining change I'd like to apply to that proposal is to remove the
> transitional m
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 Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be:
> 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD
> I'm assuming your vote would be:
> 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD
> This is hard to reconcile.
[...]
> But I don't think that a ballot
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.
On 21/11/14 at 10:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That said, I do believe we are almost in the realm of bikeshed/minutiae
> here, and I would see as a problem having a ballot with the above 6
> options + FD. So I do hope we can converge/compromise, at least among
> option proposers, on a sin
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:45:18AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm trying to summarize the thread here, so that others have an easy
> way in.
Thanks.
> "soft": <20141119220621.ga31...@master.debian.org>
> "max": <20141120192253.GA6120@jtriplet-mobl1>
> "2": <20141120204606.ga30...@upsilon.cc>
Hi,
I'm trying to summarize the thread here, so that others have an easy way
in.
Reminder: all pointers are to message-ids. You can read the mails using
https:///lists.debian.org/MESSAGE-ID .
There's an agreement that more turnover inside the TC would be a good
thing, by favoring the replacement
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
Watching other volunteer organizations, I've found that having turnover
somewhere between 3-5 years tends to work fairly well.
I've seen this in student organizations where the turnover tends to be
somewhat encouraged by graduation although in the cases I'm thinking of
that did not force the issue
On 20/11/14 at 08:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent
> > > > past
> > > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has
> > > > also
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 08:01:54AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I don't think that the TC is a stress-full role. Obviously the recent past
> > > proved how the role can be incredibly stressful at times. But there has
> > > also been long periods without much activity, [...]
FWIW, I agree wit
On 19/11/14 at 22:31 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from
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 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
> > > we are going too far. I woul
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:18:36PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
> > automatically reappoint a current member:
> >
> > The social pressures here don't work very well. In general,
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 19:13 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
> automatically reappoint a current member:
>
> The social pressures here don't work very well. In general, any
> approach that has the existing committee decide whether to retain
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
An easy way to resolve the question about the "mandatory vacation
period" would be to just have both variants available when this goes to
GR? In other words, let the project decide whether that seems prudent.
For the record, as the now-longest-serving member of the TC, I'll be the
first person to
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
> Colin) is:
> aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
> bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
> cjwat
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49:
> >-5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
> >+5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
> >+ Committee if they have been a me
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49:
-5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
+5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
+ Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
+6. If the Technical Committe
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 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
> > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members,
> > to stay members of the T
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 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > +5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
> > + Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
>
> Even if the possi
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
Hi,
First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
Colin) is:
aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.ga30...@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y
don 2009-01-
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,
On Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 21:49:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> ===
> The Constitution is amended as follows:
>
> ---
> --- constitution.txt.orig
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:33:10AM +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.
Updated draft below.
Changelog is:
- fix
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
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
> "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 automati
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 d
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.
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
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
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 nece
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 t
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
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
> > it
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 a
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
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
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
