On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:23:19AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Tech ctte tweaks"):
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 10:50:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Okay, Steve's meant to start today (in 20 minutes if we go by UTC),
> > so Ian are you happy to step down, and does everyone want to send in their
> > vote for new chair?
> Why don't we just do this instead:
If we do it as well, instead of instead, Steve's chair immediately (you
stepping down, means there's four votes in favour out of seven possible,
and the outcome's decided).
Otherwise, Raul's vote has to be excluded so we're still waiting on an
outcome; and it's not entirely clear that any of the votes are binding
in any way :(
> > > (2) Requiring an implementation of proposals
> > > So I propose we establish a rule that we won't make decisions on issues
> > > that aren't ready for an immediate NMU when we make that decision.
> > Also yes...
> I disagree with this as prviously stated.
As per http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00003.html ?
> > > (3) Advisory opinions from the chair
> > > So I propose we establish that our procedure in addressing issues is
> > > for the chair to quickly issue an initial opinion; and to only vote on
> > > issues when an official ruling is needed (eg, to overrule a maintainer)
> > > or when members of the tech ctte disagree.
> > Also yes...
> And this doesn't need a formal process. Why don't we just have the
> chair try it out ?
Depends whether other members of the ctte agree to raise any objections
they have early, or arbitrarily later, perhaps only when it comes to a
vote. If we reliably do it early, then in the absence of objections,
people can rely on the chair's opinion; if we don't, they probably
can't. That needs a commitment from all of us, not just the chair though.
But either way the proof's in the acting, so there's no real difference.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature