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

Re: NM-committee voting scheme

Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> writes:

> * Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> [2004-02-20 13:28]:
> > the NM committee seems to be a fairly recent thing and its role in a
> > rejection doesn't seem to be documented in the New Maintainer Corner.
> That page is pending a major rewrite.
> > But I'm not sure I understand the numbers needed for overruling
> > right, the part about "net".
> The stuff about "net" was in response to public recommendations; it
> has never been defined how agreement is handled in the case of the
> nm-committee.  It only said 1/4 of the committee has to disagree;
> I don't know how people who disagree with those who disagree
> (i.e. who argree with the rejection) are handled.  But I guess it onl
> matters if 1/4 disagrees - if the other 3/4 agree with the DAM or
> abstain might not matter.  I'm not sure, though, to be honest.
> > Can members abstain? Does that happen?
> This has been what the majority did so far.
> > ultimate rejection:
> > 
> > The DAM has to be replaced, which is very unlikely.
> No, there can be a GR about accepting the applicant against the DAM's
> wish (you don't have to replace the DAM, just override him in that
> case).
> -- 
> Martin Michlmayr
> tbm@cyrius.com

But an ultimate rejection is not becoming a DD on his watch. So, if
the DAM is overruled by a GR, consequently he would have to respond in
giving up his job. Thats the thread hanging there or not?

There also doesn't seem to be a timeline for reapplying after an
ultimate rejection. Ultimate rejection sounds like a life sentence.
Or can one reapply once the DAM changed? Or call a GR to be allowed to


Reply to: