Re: Tech ctte tweaks
* Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) [060217 08:59]:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Tech ctte tweaks"):
> > > (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.
I think we need some more discussion.
For decisions like overruling maintainers I agree with Anthonys
proposal. However, for giving an formal advice, or making an delegated
decision (where the maintainer gives us two opinions and says "please
tech ctte, it's your decision"), I think this gives us unnecessary
overhead.
Well, basically, there is no reason to formally make this our policy -
we can just try to work that way for some time, and if it works: good.
And if not, we can change it. (I however don't mind to make it an
official policy for overriding decisions.)
> > > (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 ?
Yep.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: