Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Tue, November 4, 2014 15:54, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
For me, I can imagine why people didn't feel the need to reply to that
question. I really don't mind whether it's formulated in a mathematical
style or in English; it's the core substance that counts. Either
formulation is acceptable. Given the lack of replies, it seems that
there's not much strong preference either way with other -vote readers.
Since you seem to have an opinion about it, perhaps you just pick one?
> - 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.)
We're certain that committee members are subscribed to debian-vote,
members have participated in this thread, and the committee as a whole is
well aware of this discussion, as evidenced from their last meeting notes.
Therefore there has been (and still is) ample room for their input on the
proposal and we need not worry that they are obvlivious of it going on.
Requiring some extra round of querying and summarising therefore just
seems like a request for busywork.
Cheers,
This
Reply to: