Maximum term for tech ctte members

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
150 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Maximum term for tech ctte members

Anthony Towns-5
Hey,

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.

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

--- constitution.cur.wml
+++ constitution.wml
@@ -507,11 +507,33 @@
     appointment.</p>
   </li>

+   <li>
+    <p>A Developer is not eligible to be appointed to the Technical Committee
+    if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.</p>
+   </li>
+
   <li>
     <p>If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they
     may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical
     Committee.</p>
   </li>
+
+   <li>
+    <p>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.</p>
+
+    <p><cite>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.</cite></p>
+   </li>
 </ol>

 <h3>6.3. Procedure</h3>

Debian's birthday came and went, so Jan 1st seems the next most
obvious flag day. 54 months is 4.5 years; if you get appointed to the
ctte in January after someone else resigns or expires, you term won't
expire until January 4 years and 11 months away, whether the limit is
48 months or 59 months, so using the midpoint means expiries happen in
the range of 4.5-5.5 years which I think works out okay.

The above's as simple as I could make the phrasing. If someone else
can do better, please do :)

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").

Cheers,
aj

[0] I'm pretty sure it was Stefano, my memory of that night's possibly
kinda blurry...

--
Anthony Towns <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAJS_LCWBErpe_TGH4uQCeTpmF9WKN4MiSm9ao-5iQiPBVYKKeQ@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sam Hartman-3
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/00000149331d4496-2ab6c505-1661-47c3-979e-2a430b3f3352-000000@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Stefano Zacchiroli
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
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:

> +   <li>
> +    <p>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.</p>
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 :)

> +    <p><cite>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.</cite></p>

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  . . . . . . .  [hidden email] . . . . 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 (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Don Armstrong
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
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:
> +   <li>
> +    <p>A Developer is not eligible to be appointed to the Technical Committee
> +    if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.</p>
> +   </li>
> +

[...]

> +
> +   <li>
> +    <p>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.</p>
> +
> +    <p><cite>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.</cite></p>
> +   </li>
>  </ol>

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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021153428.GM28201@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Stefano Zacchiroli
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
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  . . . . . . .  [hidden email] . . . . 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 (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Anthony Towns-5
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.

> > +    <p><cite>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.</cite></p>
> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021174128.GA18783@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Anthony Towns-5
In reply to this post by Don Armstrong
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141021175436.GB18783@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Bdale Garbee
Anthony Towns <[hidden email]> 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

attachment0 (826 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Stefano Zacchiroli
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:41:28PM +0000, 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  . . . . . . .  [hidden email] . . . . 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 (828 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Svante Signell-2
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1414056135.15088.101.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sam Hartman-3
In reply to this post by Anthony Towns-5
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/000001497707e3fd-2d6946c6-3431-4a77-a7e8-e3250b98980a-000000@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Neil McGovern via nm
Hi Sam,

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +0000, 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 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil McGovern <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/00000149773d76ee-ee204961-60bc-49be-a488-82f77593fd00-000000@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sune Vuorela-2
On 2014-11-03, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m38s2k$rcb$1@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Sune" == Sune Vuorela <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/0000014977a54107-749ce428-367a-433a-b1d6-f726fd155af1-000000@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Julien Cristau-6
In reply to this post by Neil McGovern via nm
On Mon, Nov  3, 2014 at 19:41:16 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +0000, 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 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Russ Allbery-2
In reply to this post by Neil McGovern via nm
Neil McGovern <[hidden email]> 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 ([hidden email])               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87d293q57z.fsf@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Don Armstrong
In reply to this post by Sam Hartman-3
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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141104002700.GE23380@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Sam Hartman-3
>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/000001497896b654-439958c7-86f7-4d2b-937d-47038d396894-000000@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

Brian Gupta-3
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:16 PM, Sam Hartman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACFaiRzw8fKRx6sBYW6QAvhCseyG_SiaJC9m+5thhosSVahJXw@...

1234 ... 8