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

Re: Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority within the tech ctte

Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority within the tech ctte"):
> > > +         2. An option A defeats the default option D provided that:
> > > +              (a) V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A); and
> > > +              (b) if a supermajority of N:1 is required, then V(A,D)
> > > +                  is greater than or equal to N * V(D/A).
> >                                                      ^^^^^^
> > ITYM V(D,A), i.e. a comma seperates the two parameters of V.
> As I got no further comments from other people of the tech ctte, this
> can only mean that everyone agrees with this version, or is not
> interessted.

I think the version I quote (as amended) is the best.

> So, unless someone proposes another option, I intend to call for
> votes in a week so that I know better which of the two options it is.

However, there are a couple of other things that we maybe want to
think about including in our GR:

* Explicitly being allowed to have private discussions on the subject
  of who should maintain a particular package.  The options should be:
    - private discussions when we feel it appropriate
    - private discussions only for appointments and maintainerships
    - status quo

* Possibly increasing the maximum size of the committee.  I would be
  happy with 12, given the busy nature of the existing members.

* An advisory resolution which gives the project a way to formally
  give us some guidance on how ready we should be to overrule
  developers.  A wording something like:

    In the past the Technical Committee have been slow and reluctant
    to overrule a maintainer unless all the members are absolutely
    convinced that the maintainer's decision was wrong.

    Option A: This is the correct approach.

    Option B: TC members should be willing to vote to overrule
        if they feel that the maintainer's decision was wrong;
        the supermajority requirement is sufficient to guard
        against overruling in questionable cases.

If we do want to ask the developers to vote on any of these, we should
arrange that all the votes can be run concurrently.  Ideally on a
single ballot, but with multiple independent questions.


Reply to: