Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?
Adeodato Simó writes ("Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?"):
> It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or
> less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that
> once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over
> the lists.
Quite possibly.
> I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while
> ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's
> a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the
> discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it.
Right.
> So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
> of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
> "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
> having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them,
> and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering
> and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too.
I think this is a good idea. Are you volunteering to maintain the
wiki page, and post periodic summaries of the schedule and so on ? :-)
> Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:
...
> * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
> Matthew Johnson express interest in this).
I think we need to get our GR procedures sorted before we tackle the
others since the others may well involve GRs.
We have a number of constitutional proposals:
- Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots
- Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and
empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so
- Increase GR quorum (various options)
- Clarify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the SC
- Fix TC supermajority off-by-one error
- Increase TC maximum size
Ian.
Reply to: