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

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And without both those things, even if it improves now, it will
> > stagnate again in future.
> Since the problem is stagnation, what about trying to address that
> directly?

Stagnation's one problem; it's not the only one.

> I suggest assigning each open issue to a CTTE member in turn who acts
> as the chair for that issue (with skipping if the member should recuse
> themselves because they are directly involved.) [This can be tracked
> using the owner field in the BTS.]

We did that for a while; it didn't result in those bugs being dealt with
particularly effectively.


 -- 350739 no action from ctte, closed by cdrkit upload about six weeks
    later (assigned to Steve)

 -- 353277, 353278 had been an attempted vote in March 2006, which
    was split two for, two against; there was more discussion, chair
    called for the vote to be redone in March 2007, when we decided to endorse
    the maintainer's actions, 5:2 (assigned to Raul)

 -- 341839 no discussion until June 2007 (11 months later), at which
    point we voted to rescind the previous tech-ctte decision in favour
    of existing practice, 4:1 (assigned to Ian)

 -- 366938, 367709 closed as irrelevant in June 2007 (11 months later)
    after the submitter was removed from the project (assigned to
    Anthony). 367709 had a vote at the end of June after the bug was
    closed, which was 4:1 against the submitter's proposal.

> If an issue itself isn't put to a vote within a month or a week of the
> last message on the issue (whichever is longer), the person assigned
> to the issue is assumed to be inactive or too busy to serve, and is
> removed from the CTTE, and a new member is appointed in their place.

The constitution's specific on how those things happen; people can
only get removed on an individual basis by ctte vote and the DPL's
agreement. People can only be added similarly -- which makes someone who's
inactive for a week (or however long) require about four week's of work
for the rest of the committee just for process, ignoring any deliberation.

My expectation would be that at best it would work briefly, then become
too much effort for too little gain, and get dropped so that we're back
where we are now -- much like the rotating chair or the bug assignment
have been. At worst, it'd go against some of the committee's idea on
how the committee should work, and it wouldn't happen in the first place.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: