[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Status of resolutions about TC tweaks



A. Chairman:

  It is clear that:

  1. I stepped down as Chairman;
  2. Steve, Raul, Anthony and I, and perhaps Manoj,
     have all voted for Steve as chairman; so:
  3. Steve is now Chairman.

  It is not clear whether Manoj voted during the voting period because
  it's not clear exactly when I stepped down, but we should give him
  the benefit of the doubt.  My apologies for my contribution to the
  confusion.  I should have done my constitutional research earlier
  and then I would have been more forceful in my criticisms of the
  intended approach.

  It is not clear to me whether a chairmanship schedule has been
  approved and if it has been approved what it would mean.  Steve, as
  the current Chairman, should tell us what his opinion is.

  My personal opinion:

  No resolution has been passed (or perhaps that no resolution with
  any effect has been passed) because the thing that was approved
  doesn't claim to have any particular effect.

  We should have a discussion about how to resolve the procedural
  issues.  If we cannot resolve them to everyone's satisfaction then
  we should simply vote for a permanent chairman and instead make a
  rota for who will do chasing etc.  (And who is primarily responsible
  for writing mails like this one!)

B. `Requiring implementation':

  The following draft resolution:

  ]  (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.

  was proposed on the 15th of February by Anthony.  Andreas, I, Raul
  and Manoj voted no (formally, Further Discussion).  Steve and
  Anthony voted yes.  With four votes against, the outcome is no
  longer in doubt and the resolution is defeated.

C. `Advisory opinions':

  The following draft resolution:

  ] (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.

  was proposed on the 15th of February by Anthony.  Raul, Manoj and I
  have voted no.  Andreas and Anthony voted yes.  Steve initially
  voted yes but in <20060221010303.GA26909@tennyson.dodds.net> on the
  20th of February he seems to retract.

  That's 2 in favour, 3 against, and one unclear.  There are two days
  left for someone else to vote or someone to change their mind.  The
  outcome is only in doubt because it's not clear that Steve's most
  recent message was intended as a no vote; Steve, could you clarify ?
  Note that if Steve votes `yes' and nothing else happens then Steve
  gets to use his casting vote.

Ian.



Reply to: