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

Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:08:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Moving from -project. Reference:
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054
> Like I said, I'd rather provide a second than make a proposal, but at
> debconf Stefano [0] said he'd appreciate some sample wording, so
> here's what I came up with, based on where I was thinking when the
> thread on -project sputtered out.
> [0] I'm pretty sure it was Stefano, my memory of that night's possibly
> kinda blurry...

Yeah, that was me. Thanks a lot for this draft!

In general, it looks good to me and I'd be happy to second something
along these lines. A few comments:

> +   <li>
> +    <p>Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically reviewed
> +    on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, any member of the
> +    Technical Committee who was most recently appointed 54 or more months
> +    prior will ordinarily have their term automatically expire. However,
> +    a member's term may be extended until the next review provided
> +    there are at least two other members, each of whom who either (a)
> +    are a current, longer serving member of Technical Committee, or (b)
> +    resigned from the Technical Committee, or were removed or replaced
> +    since the previous review.</p>

FWIW, I found the original wording about this part from


much easier to follow, but it might be a non-native speaker failure on
my part.  Still, I hereby AOL your call for simpler phrasing here :)

> +    <p><cite>When the Committee is fully populated, it is expected this
> +    will result in a turnover of 1 or 2 members each year, whether by
> +    resignation or term expiry, while allowing senior members to stay
> +    on if a junior member resigns.</cite></p>

Does this really belong to the constitutional text? It is good to
document the underlying principle/expectation of this change, but having
it in the GR text (but still not in the constitution itself) would be
good enough IMO.

> I know there's been some talk that maybe this is something the ctte
> should just handle themselves; my view is that it's better to have
> something that just takes care of it in a "good enough" way without
> having to take specific actions (which can be missed or
> procrastinated) or having the people involved having to think about it
> in detail (whether that means bikeshedding the process or weight it
> against "oh, but I have a couple more things I just have to do while
> on the ctte").

Very much agreed.  Nonetheless, before formally calling for seconds, it
would be nice to solicit comments from current tech-ctte members on the
latest and greatest draft of the GR text.

Thanks again,
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: