On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:33:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:30:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That could work, though it's odd that Steve gets a shorter time > > > in the chair than others. > > Two month terms offset by a month give 7 people a go at being chair > > at some point each year. It also lets us start sooner rather than later. > Huh? > I was thinking either (a) start the whole thing at the end of the month > rather than the middle of the month, or (b) start each term on the > 15th of a month. Starting in January (or, equivalently, March) would give 6 two-month terms in a year, starting in February gives you 5 two-month terms, and two one-month terms, so everyone gets a chance (well, except Manoj who's presently disqualified, or except if we had 8 members with none disqualified). > I guess you could argue that (a) is starting later rather than sooner, > but beyond that I don't get it. Does it matter at all? I'd say start it tomorrow, if I thought we could come to a decision that quickly :) > > > > (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. > > > I don't know that we need to make a rule about this so much as > > > advertise a guideline. > > I was thinking along the lines of "rules of order", which isn't much > > different from "advertising a guideline". The difference is if we set it > > up as a rule, people can be confident we'll adhere to it, whereas if we > > call it a guideline we might end up spending time wondering if we should > > adhere to it on each issue. > Eh... of course we already have something like this written into the > constitution. But, sure, a little crisping up would probably be a good > thing. I don't see anything like that in the constitution? > > mail. But as it stands, two months after referring the topic to the ctte, > > rleigh still couldn't tell if there was any resolution. So I think by mid > > to late December he should've been able to cite a first pass statement > > by Ian to the effect of "devmapper should setup inodes with permissions > > 0600, and ownership as root.disk", possibly with a rider that that's > > the chair's opinion not a final decision or whatever, but without any > > devil's advocacy or further questions having already been dealt with. > Ok. That was already my impression of how things are going, and > I guess you're saying we should be more emphatic earlier in the > process. Yes. > > Second change is that I don't think the tech ctte should consider > > unimplemented proposals; so while Bastian's ideas might be great, > > our choice of resolution is "leave it as it is" or "implement rleigh's > > patches"; obviously once Bastian's idea is implemented, it could replace > > either outcome, but until then we have to make a choice between things > > we can do now. That's from issue (2). > Hmm... I don't think we can consider anything but unimplemented proposals. When overruling a maintainer, we're definitely considering at least one implemented proposal: the one we're considering overruling. > As a general rule, we're supposed to help solve unsolved problems. > Maybe you meant that we should not consider ambiguous proposals? I think that as soon as the tech ctte says "this is the way it shall be done", it should be done that way -- at least by having a tested patch sent to the relevant maintainers, but possibly even by doing any necessary uploads ourselves as NMUs. Dropping any ambiguity's one thing certainly, but reducing the time between getting a decision from the ctte and having it actually happen and making sure that ctte decisions are definitely implementable are factors too. IMHO, anyway. > I can see that as a weakness of our approach on this issue. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature