[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> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
    >> For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff.

    Ian> Um, I'm confused.  I did not suggest what I would think of
    Ian> `automated stuff'.  That is, I am not suggesting there should
    Ian> be a robot, or an absolute rule.

    Ian> I am suggesting that the TC should have, effectively, a
    Ian> standing rule that this is the /normal/ way to proceed:

    Ian> I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner
    Ian> requests, be subject to a quick vote on whether to preserve the
    Ian> status quo (perhaps by overruling to at least temporarily
    Ian> revert a recent maintainer decision).

I'd agree with that if you replace submitter with k TC members.
I.E. my objection is to having submitters create work for the TC when no
one on the TC agrees the work is valuable.

    Ian> This should be documented somewhere so that a submitter knows
    Ian> they can request it.

Agreed.  Even if it takes TC members to get this process going, I think
we should do a much better job of documenting internal TC process.

Reply to: