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

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

* Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner@student.uni-tuebingen.de> [2004-02-25 01:20]:
> I'd be interested in the rationale for requiring a 2/3 majority for
> overriding a "strong rejection"; no organization I know requires a
> 2/3 majority for anything except changing foundational documents or
> similar, and certainly not for overriding a decision made by a
> single person which is not even based on a well-defined set of
> rules.

The Debian Account Manager is the authority on adding and removing
members as per the Constitution, so I personally would consider
overriding his opinion (if it's a strong rather then weak
opinion/rejection) as quite severe, similar to changing a foundational

> Also I don't think it's sensible to make the decision based on the
> total number of committee members, but rather it should be only
> based on the number of voting committee members, as is common
> practise (perhaps requiring >x% votes to make the vote valid).

Yeah, one thing we never specified is whether NM committee members
agreeing with the decision should be taken into account.  At the
moment, my interpretation is that agreement or disdain is taken as
agreement, i.e. only disagreement matters.

i.e. what I'm saying is that it is not treated as a vote but rather as
a veto.  We're not voting on the matter, but NM committee members have
a chance to veto.

> In summary, it seems more sensible to me to just decide by majority
> of NM committee whether the applicant is accepted, and have the type
> of rejection only determine the time frame of reapplication.

Hmm, that's actually an interesting idea.  We'd have to see what other
people think of this, though.  (-newmaint would be more appropriate
for these kind of discussions, though.)
Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: