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

TC GR proposals

Dear all,

during today's face-to-face meeting at DebConf (with Steve, Andreas, 
Bdale and myself), we reviewed all currently open issues [0] and 
discussed informally how we felt about what the next steps should be for 
each of them, and spread action items between us. Expect moves on 
various bugs "soon".

We also discussed the actual "TC proposing GRs" issue. For the context, 
during the initial #636783 discussions, Ian proposed various options to 
facilitate the acceptance of uncontroversial amendments by the TC, in 
the context of GRs proposed by the TC.

His initial idea, was to let the TC delegate this power to one of its 
members, but this was considered unconstitutional by the secretary. He 
then came up with the following "promise" that was supposed to come 
after each GR proposals, it is attached to this mail.

During the discussion, we understood this as an attempt at reaching the 
same effect than the delegation to an individual TC member, only 
delegating to all of them, through using unusual constitutional 
gymnastics, with which we didn't really feel comfortable.

The crux of the issue is really that the §4.2.1 procedure allowing the 
TC to automatically trigger GRs is hardly practical for the next parts 
of the GR procedure (amendments, etc), given §A.1 "discussion and 
amendments". But the discussion revealed a quite easy way out of this, 
that doesn't require the complicated "TC promise mechanism": §4.2.1 : "A 
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and 
sponsored by at least K other Developers". Given that K is maximum 5 
(and will stay 5 as long as there are more than 100 Developers), this 
means that an GR proposal uncontroversial within the TC can easily be 
introduced if 6 TC members agree with it (one proposer, 5 sponsors).

We therefore concluded that this would be a good way to move forward on 
these issues: any TC member should propose these and the others (feeling 
so) would sponsor the GR. The process would then follow as usual.

Given how much clearer this process looks like, I'll act boldly and 
reformat the GR proposals in the repository accordingly.

2. It is not practical for the TC to vote to accept/reject individual
   amendments to the GR proposal.  The TC would wish to delegate its
   power to accept amendments, to avoid needing the collection of
   sponsors for uncontroversial changes.  However the Secretary has
   advised that this is not constitutionally acceptable.

   Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the
   following promise.  If any TC member gives notice that the TC
   accepts an amendment, then at least one of the following will

     (a) the TC will use its own power under A.1(1) to arrange that
         the amendment appears on the GR ballot as an option;

     (b) the TC will use its power under A.1(1) to propose and
         its power under A.1(2) to accept the amendment, so that
         the amendment is incorporated in the version voted on; or

     (c) A member of the TC will publicly notify the amendment's
         proposer that the amendment will not be accepted after all.
         In this case TC will wait at least 7 more days before calling
         for a vote, to give time for the amendment's proposer to
         collect sponsors.


Reply to: