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

Re: Technical committee resolution

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [080310 03:49]:
>    3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any
>       Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest serving
>       current member, provided there have not already been 2 or more
>       appointments to the Technical Committee during the current Leader's
>       term.

> The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> term, so we get new blood in the committee, and people don't get stuck in
> the committee until they eventually fade away from the project.

Though I agree the idea in general, I don't think mechanically replacing
the two longest serving members is a good idea. It might be better to
allow the DPL to just replace any two members of the ctte. On the other
hand, I would keep the current addition policy "as default".

So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with:
  3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members
     unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them as
     additional members at his choice, provided the maximum number of eight
     members is not exceeded.

> ======================================================================
> Change 6.1(4) from "Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority)." to
> "Overrule a Developer (requires a 2.5:1 majority)."
> ======================================================================
> Given the way vote counting is defined later, that means that 1 vote
> for FD is the same as 2.5 votes for overruling a developer; so 3 votes
> (or more) in favour are required to defeat 1 vote against, and 6 votes
> in favour are required to defeat 2 votes against (since there are only
> at most 8 members, you can't have 7 votes for and 2 against; and 3 votes
> against can't be defeated; the Chairman's casting vote also can't save
> an option that's got 5 votes for and 2 against).

I would rather prefer to fix the definition that 3:1 majority *really*
is a 3:1 majority.


Reply to: