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

seats shuffling

Dear tech-ctte members,
  I'm catching up with the DebConf12 events I've missed, and I've been
pleased to do so with the "meet the Technical Committee" session that
some of you have run.  Very interesting discussion and Q&A, well done!

In particular, I'm delighted that you found so valuable the IRC meeting
proposal and that you're motivated to keep it going on a monthly basis.

But I'm writing here for another topic you mentioned in the session, two
in fact: tech-ctte seats availability and "diversity" (the latter not in
the strictly "demographic" sense, but in the more general sense of
"having different views / mindsets represented", something that Steve
Langasek mentioned also at the time of the last tech-ctte appointment,
if I'm not mistaken.)

I agree with you that one member of the tech-ctte has been inactive at
least over the period I've been DPL. No blame is intended with that: we
all know that in a volunteer community that could happen for a whole lot
of different reasons.

What do you think of joining the dots of: (1) a seemingly inactive seat
and (2) the desire of having more views represented in the tech-ctte,
and agree under Constitution §6.2.5 on a seat change?  If you want me
to, I'll be happy to help contacting the relevant persons, but the
proposal for the new seat should better come from the tech-ctte itself
(even after private discussion, if you prefer, under §6.3.4).

If you like to, we can also discuss this over the next IRC meeting. In
that case, please mention this in the agenda so that it'll catch my
attention and I'll make sure to attend the meeting.

Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: