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: