On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:11:08PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft resolution"):
> > Augh, we just agreed on a rotation, why a new one now? Downside to the
> > above: it schedules newbies and oldbies together rather than interspersing
> > them (Me then Andy; Bdale then Ian).
> Your resolution doesn't deal with the problems that mine addresses.
> In particular, it doesn't address the need for the implied
> resignations and doesn't explain what the purported mechanism is.
I don't agree that yours addresses this issue either. The constitution
specifies a mechanism for voting in a new chair, which is that a vote is
held when the vacancy occurs. We can certainly comport ourselves however we
choose to with regard to internal committee procedures (tacit agreements
that a particular person will drive discussions on a particular issue, draft
resolutions, etc), but wrt the official duties of the Committee Chair
(casting votes/standing in for the DPL), we have no right to expect the
Project to accept as legitimate a Chair election that doesn't follow the
specified procedure.
So since there is no provision in the constitution for voting for a
successor to the Chair except in the week preceding a vacancy, I don't see
any way that voting this rotation as a whole can be binding on the project.
> I don't want our decisions to be challeged because some chairman's
> casting vote is allegedly invalid.
I don't either, which is why this vote needs to be "Ian has stepped down;
who will succeed him?" in order to be binding under the constitution.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature