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 https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/06/msg00026.html 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, Cheers. -- 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