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

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> 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.

    Ian> 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".

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

For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff.

I'm much more interested in empowering people than having formal
And in this instance, I think TC members are more likely to do a better
job of drafting ballots and the like than submitters.

What I'm hearing is that there seems to be general support for TC
members calling for quick votes in cases like this.  If I were doing it
I'd probably give 24 hours to comment on an interim ballot and then do a
To me as a TC member knowing that I have the support of the TC for such
measures is helpful.

I understand there are community members who want to go further than
that and have automatic votes, etc.
I'll not speak on that further unless I see support within the TC.

Reply to: