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

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

josh@joshtriplett.org writes ("Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > At that point, I'd see it more like overrule maintainer pending longer
> > discussion.

That would have been a much better answer to #766708.

> That's not a bad plan, actually.  The three standard options could be,
> in effect, "preliminary injunction against the maintainer to avoid
> immediate harm, but we still need to talk about this more", "dismissed
> as completely inappropriate to have taken to the TC at all", or "we need
> further discussion before we can even offer an opinion".

How can we avoid this getting blocked by the TC having to draft the
`temporary overrule' ?  Should the TC expect a submitter of a bug in a
situation like #766708 to provide a draft of an `interim injunction' ?

If so then this should be spelled out on the TC wiki page, or
somewhere, perhaps.  And then it should be conventional for the first
TC member to read the email to, as a matter of routine, call for a
vote on {interrim overrule, immediately close bug with no action, FD}.

Such an `interim injunction' should usually have an automatic expiry.
That might help concentrate the minds of the TC by giving a deadline.


Reply to: