On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:00:46PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This seems to have stalled and I'm disappointed to see that because I
> think this is an important issue.
To be frank, I find quite odd to call something in Debian "stalled" on
the basis that it didn't complete in 2 weeks. Especially considering
that:
(a) the issue has been arguably "stalled" for 6 months, revived at
DebConf, and advanced *a lot* precisely over the past few weeks
(thanks to Antony's work); and
(b) there are actionable items that have been discussed in this
thread. Working on them would be much more productive than
threatening to send out a call for seconds if nothing happens in
what I consider to be a very short time frame for Debian discussion
standards
(As an aside, giving some of the clumsiness of the Debian GR
process, I think it's never a good idea to send a GR call for
seconds before sending a complete draft to -vote and let it linger
for at least 1 week without having to accept any modification
whatsoever to the text, not even editorial ones. Been there, done
that. YMMV.)
That said, I'm interested in this GR, but I've had troubles finding time
to push the discussion forward. But I do agree with the apparent
consensus in the "timing" sub-thread: there are no good reasons for
having the term limit GR happen before the ongoing GR is over, and there
are good reasons not to do so.
In the meantime, here is where I think people could help with the
preparation work that needs to be completed before sending out a call
for seconds (if one wants to minimize the risk of fuckups, that is):
- me and Antony discussed various wording possibilities, including at
least two variants: a more mathematical one and one fully in prose.
I've stated my preference among the two, and asked others to comment
on that specific matter. No one did. If you are interested in this
topic, please do.
- I've mentioned before that it would be nice to *explicitly* address
the ctte and ask them what they think about the GR text. Of course it
would be inappropriate to offer the ctte a sort of "veto" power on
this GR, and I'm fully convinced they'd refuse such an offer. But this
GR has the potential of being confrontational and cause tension
between project members and tech-ctte members. I think that risk
should be minimized as much as feasible. A formal "what do you think
of this?" question to the tech-ctte is really the bare minimum that
the proposers of this GR should do.
This item is very actionable: go forward and ask the ctte, summarize
answers received, report back to -project. (Although it has a
dependency on the previous item.)
- I haven't mentioned it yet publicly (still due to ENOTIME), but I
still have mixed feelings about the provision that allows "younger"
ctte members to step down, inhibiting the expiry of "older" members.
I'm not necessarily against that, but I'm struggling to understanding
its rationale.
Antony: can you remind us what the rationale is?
Others: how do you feel about that?
> My interest in only to make sure this issue is not dropped.
That's great, because I care about it too! But I think that keeping
track of actionable items, reminding the community of them, and acting
on them is a much more effective way of ensuring progress in Debian than
ultimatums.
With many thanks for reviving this thread,
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