Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:15:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > * Someone proposed that the leader makes the initial list of members which
> > would then be voted upon, not sure; I would maintain my position that
> > people should be nominating themselves, rather than the leader naming
> > them - I don't believe we clarified this point
> I don't know who did this proposal but letting the leader pick the soc-ctte
> people out of a number of people that explicitely volunteered to work in the
> soc-ctte (it makes no sense to pick people that do not volunteer to do some
> work) might be a resonable alternative.
I have an issue with the leader deciding on the composition of the
committee, in general. I think it could easily create the impression
that they are his cronies, and we have to avoid that.
I don't think that all other methods involving nominations and voting are
such an unbearable overhead.
> BTW, we did not discuss whether certain positions should exclude that a
> person is a member of the soc-ctte at the same time. For instance I'm
> unsure whether the leader should be a member at the same time which might
> perfectly happen under some circumstances if we decide that soc-ctte stays
> for two years stable and one of its members is successfully running for DPL.
I think that there's plenty of people in Debian for us to have different
people in different positions at all times :) 7/1000 or 15/1000 is tiny.
> > The opposition to the idea of not having any vetting of candidates was
> > that there would be no accountability, no way to remove people who are
> > perceived to be bad, or inactive.
> > Proposal to address this was to have yearly approval voting of soc-ctte
> > members, whereby the developers would be able to tick off a particular
> > member and remove them that way.
> For these case I'd alternatively suggest kind of a soc-ctte internal voting
> mechanism to sort out those who shouldn't be a member for whatever reason
Obviously, yes. But even then, the people outside might not see things
the same way as the other members of the committee, and they have to have
a method of voicing this opinion other than a rowdy flamewar on the
mailing list or a GR explicitly condemning some member. That's just ugly.
> > It wasn't particularly clear what would be done after that (mostly by
> > time constraints during the discussion...); how much non-approval
> > would the members have to get in order to get removed; whether the
> > removed members would have to be replaced, when and how would the
> > replacement be done (appointment by leader? and then voting?). It was
> > also proposed that only one half of the committee members go up for
> > this kind of an approval vote each year.
> The reason was that we need some kind of stability. IMHO we do not have
> such a high frequency of "soc-ctte business cases" (furtunately) that
> members have a chance to gather some experience in this business.
Oh, and I should mention that people seemed to be a bit unaware of
the fact that I had two years set for elections, rather than one,
which is another method to have more stability. Especially if combined
with that half-half rule Andreas mentioned.
(In general, I got the distinct impression that many people couldn't be
bothered to read long threads followed by diffs to the constitution.
Can't blame them, really :)
2. That which causes joy or happiness.