Re: Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority within the tech ctte
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>> 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.
I agree with that proposal and think it would be a worthwhile amendment.
I'd be happy to see someone drive this forward.
Andreas, did you want us to vote on whether to bring this forward as a GR,
or was this bug more in the way of a medium for discussion?
>> 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:
Your message seems to have killed all further discussion of this. :)
I would be happy to go forward with the GR to fix the supermajority rule
by itself, since I think it's uncontroversial and could be easily passed.
However, commenting on the other things you mention:
> * 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
This seems like a good idea, and I would tend to vote for private
discussions when we feel it appropriate. Realistically, I don't see how
one can stop people from having private conversations anyway when they
know each other; it's just a natural thing for people to do, and those
discussions happen in person at DebConf or in other media that isn't
easily recorded even if we wanted to.
> * Possibly increasing the maximum size of the committee. I would be
> happy with 12, given the busy nature of the existing members.
If there are people interested in helping drive things to resolution, that
would be helpful, as we're not currently doing a stellar job on that
front.
> * 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.
Hm. That's interesting, yes. I have no idea what the outcome of that
vote would be, and I'd be curious to see how it turned out. I think this
should be a separate GR, though; I don't think it's really related to the
above procedural issues.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: