Technical comitee: motion for initial members
Rationale:
As I see it, we vote for Project Leader with different criteria
than we would choose a Technical Commitee. Though I would have
gladly voted for Ian if I was already officially a developer by
the time of the election, there are other people on which I
would "vote" for appointing an initial Technical Commitee. That's
the whole point of allowing the Commitee to appoint its members
independently of the Leader, as I read it.
I hereby propose 3 motions; they are contradicting, so we should
choose either one or "0: have the Leader appoint the 6 initial
members" as Ian suggested. My personal preference is for "1".
Motion 1: vote for the Chairman of the Technical Commitee
The developers would vote for the initial Chairman of the
Commitee, using the same procedure used for electing the Project
Leader. This person, once elected, will have two weeks to
appoint other five people to form the initial Commitee. This
person *should* conference with the Project Leader on this
appointments.
Motion 2: vote for three initial members of the Commitee by
"triple counting"
The developers would each vote for three developers they wish to
be on the initial Commitee. The three candidates with more votes
form the initial Commitee and have two weeks to appoint other
three developers; once the Commitee has six members it should
elect its initial Chairman. If a developer is elected for the
initial Commitee and does not desire the position, all votes for
this developer will be ignored (so the results will have to be
recalculated).
Motion 3: vote for three initial members of the Commitee by
"classificatory counting"
The developers would each vote for ONE other developer they wish
to be on the initial Commitee. The three candidates with more
votes form the initial Commitee and have two weeks to appoint
other three developers; once the Commitee has six members it
should elect its initial Chairman. If a developer is elected for
the initial Commitee and does not desire the position, all votes
for this developer will be ignored (so the results will have to
be recalculated).
On Apr 03, Ian Jackson decided to present us with:
> Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)"):
> ....
> > Section 6 (and elsewhere) talks about the "Technical Commitee". Can I
> > assume that we don't currently have one of those? If I understand the
> > constitution, this means that Ian will have to appoint 5 members, and
> > those 5 members will have a week to appoint a 6th member? I saw no
> > criterion for deciding whether extra committee members were needed for the
> > extra 2 possible seats. Am I just missing something here?
>
> The motion that I proposed would have me appoint the entire technical
> committee for the first time. If we don't do that then I have to
> appoint one member, who appoints all the remaining members until there
> are 6, at which point I get to veto the 7th and 8th.
>
> I suppose I could appoint myself initially :-).
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
Howling to the moonlight on a hot summer night...
http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:lalo@webcom.com
pgp key in the web page
Free Software Union -- http://www.fslu.org
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: