On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:13:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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. Since the constitution does not state clearly what the voting period for chair elections is, and allows a short-circuit of the voting period only after *all* members have voted (not just when the outcome is no longer in question, as the rule is for resolutions), I'm reluctant to declare myself the winner based on 4 votes. In response to my second call for votes, additional vote mails were sent by the remaining members; Bdale: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00050.html Andi: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00051.html Manoj: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00059.html I think Manoj's vote is pretty clear, but I would defer to you as outgoing chair regarding the validity of the other two votes. Please comment whether you interpret Bdale's and Andi's votes as valid ballots equivalent to "1) Steve 2) Further Discussion". Otherwise, by default I suppose the vote would end March 3, two weeks from your resignation mail. Alternatively, Manoj can invoke secretarial prerogative to tell us whether he thinks the "one week" mentioned in 6.1.7 doubles for a statement of the length of voting period. > 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. I believe Manoj voted yes in <[🔎] 87pslgwyrc.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, four days after the first mail from you confirming that you were stepping down, so should be counted. > 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. Nothing in stone, so if you feel this should be re-evaluated, let's go ahead and do so. > 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. You, me, and Anthony voted yes on Anthony's proposed rotation; Raul voted for the committee chair, did not vote on the proposed rotation; Bdale[1] and Andi[2] indicated they were "ok" or "fine" with the rotation proposal, but I don't see that this can be taken for a formal "yes" vote on the proposal in question; Manoj[3] voted "yes" on "rotating the tech ctte chair" without stating clearly whether he was endorsing the proposed rotation schedule or just the principle of rotating the chair, but a vote had only been called for the former so I think this can be understood as a "pro" vote unless Manoj disagrees with this interpretation himself. In any case, with 3 (or 4) votes for and no against, the vote passes. That leaves only the question of interpreting its effect. Since this body is constitutionally established and does not have the authority to modify the constitution, I believe the constitution's requirement that committee chair elections take place at the time of vacancy must take precedence over any resolutions we pass. As chair, I will state that my own "yes" vote on this resolution should be understood as a statement of intent to step down as chair at the end of March, as in the original proposed rotation schedule. I expect other "yes" votes can be understood the same way, and trust in the honor of each member of this committee to give up the chair at the designated time. If anyone else has doubts about this, or if it is felt after all that a chair election every two months is too much overhead, the committee can opt to elect a permanent chair at the end of March instead of continuing with a rotation. I would recommend deciding this now rather than waiting until the vote is called, though. > 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. My count of the votes: For: Anthony: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00033.html Steve: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00035.html Against (FD): Ian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00036.html Andi: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00039.html Manoj: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00059.html I don't see any formal vote from Raul on this proposal after the vote was called, though he did state his disagreement with it during prior discussion. Please let me know if I've missed a mail. Either way, this resolution fails. At least one "Further discussion" vote seems to suggest that a more detailed proposal might gain additional support. > 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. TTBOMK, my only "vote" on this was <[🔎] 20060216013249.GD10027@tennyson.dodds.net>, an abstention. > 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. Since I'm not aware of having voted yes on this, I don't see any reason to have changed my vote to no. :) Anyway, by my reckoning the one-week voting period ended on the 22nd since Anthony called for a vote on Feb 15, so this vote is closed either way. Count of votes: For: none Against (FD): Ian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00036.html Andi: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00039.html Anthony: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00047.html I'm not aware of any other opinions from the remaining committee members following the call for votes. So this fails 3-0. -- 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/ [1] <[🔎] 87bqx143hz.fsf@rover.gag.com> [2] <[🔎] 20060221114229.GG26690@mails.so.argh.org> [3] <[🔎] 87pslgwyrc.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature