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: