On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Thanks for your feedback. New draft attached implementing (almost all)
the changes you suggested. The GR text is now also available at
http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=summary
which also contains BUGS{_archive,} files listing fixed and pending
issues.
> > + 3. At each review round expiries are processed sequentially, most
> > + senior member first.
> > + 4. No expiry can reduce the size of the Technical Committee to
> > + 3 members or fewer. (It might thus happen that up to 4
[...]
> I guess I'd still be inclined to drop both of those; I don't see much
> difference between (letting the membership drop to 5 or 4 at which point
> DPL can increase it without the ctte's cooperation) and (letting the
> membership drop to 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 at which point the DPL can increase
> it without the ctte's cooperation), and making it another two paragraphs
> simpler would be a win.
>
> Wording simplifications and fixes for my en_IT idiosyncrasies are
I'm convinced by your arguments. After all, the committee can become
understaffed for reasons other than expiries, and the Constitution
already has a mechanism for dealing with that: more liberal ctte
appointment by the DPL alone. (And Occam's razor rocks anyhow.)
Fixed in the new draft attached.
I note that this might be seen as flying a little bit in the face of
continuity---which we have discussed before in this thread. But that
theoretical problem is balanced by the fact that we limit expiries to 2
per year. That should be enough to induce a fairly regular turn-over.
> "not eligible to be (re)appointed" perhaps?
Fixed.
(For those who care about uniformity: yes the "(re)appointed" syntax was
already used elsewhere in the Constitution.)
> "provided /they/ were appointed" reads to me like it might mean that if
> only one of them was appointed that long ago, maybe neither of them expire.
> I'm not sure I can think of anything better; maybe something like "At this
> time, the terms of members who were appointed at least 54 months ago
> automatically expire. Expiry occurs in order of seniority, and is limited
> to at most the two most senior members." would be better? But I'm not sure
> this is worth fixing.
This is still pending, and noted in BUGS. I agree this is as a potential
problem, at least if you look at it from a paranoid angle. I find your
suggested wording not immediate, though, and I wonder if a/ someone else
has better suggestion, and b/ whether this is worth fixing.
> Maybe "(It might thus happen that at the start of January 1st the
> Technical Committee is composed of just 4 members, all of whom were
> appointed more than 54 months ago. If so, no one's term will expire.
> However if additional members are appointed in the next year, then the 2
> most senior members' terms will expire at the next review round.)" would be
> better? I'm not sure if this needs explaining though?
This has become moot, as the underlying text is gone.
> I wonder if "four and a half years (54 months)" would be better.
Fixed.
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 »
Constitution for the Debian Project (v1.4)
Version 1.4 ratified on October 7th, 2007. Supersedes Version 1.3
ratified on September 24th, 2006, Version 1.2 ratified on October 29th,
2003 and Version 1.1 ratified on June 21st, 2003, which itself
supersedes Version 1.0 ratified on December 2nd, 1998.
1. Introduction
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
common cause to create a free operating system.
This document describes the organisational structure for formal
decision-making in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
Project or how it achieves them, or contain any policies except those
directly related to the decision-making process.
2. Decision-making bodies and individuals
Each decision in the Project is made by one or more of the following:
1. The Developers, by way of General Resolution or an election;
2. The Project Leader;
3. The Technical Committee and/or its Chairman;
4. The individual Developer working on a particular task;
5. Delegates appointed by the Project Leader for specific tasks;
6. The Project Secretary.
Most of the remainder of this document will outline the powers of these
bodies, their composition and appointment, and the procedure for their
decision-making. The powers of a person or body may be subject to
review and/or limitation by others; in this case the reviewing body or
person's entry will state this. In the list above, a person or body is
usually listed before any people or bodies whose decisions they can
overrule or who they (help) appoint - but not everyone listed earlier
can overrule everyone listed later.
2.1. General rules
1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do
work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which
has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
However, they must not actively work against these rules and
decisions properly made under them.
2. A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader,
Project Secretary and the Chairman of the Technical Committee must
be distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their
own Delegate.
3. A person may leave the Project or resign from a particular post
they hold, at any time, by stating so publicly.
3. Individual Developers
3.1. Powers
An individual Developer may
1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their
own work;
2. propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions;
3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections;
4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections.
3.2. Composition and appointment
1. Developers are volunteers who agree to further the aims of the
Project insofar as they participate in it, and who maintain
package(s) for the Project or do other work which the Project
Leader's Delegate(s) consider worthwhile.
2. The Project Leader's Delegate(s) may choose not to admit new
Developers, or expel existing Developers. If the Developers feel
that the Delegates are abusing their authority they can of course
override the decision by way of General Resolution - see �4.1(3),
�4.2.
3.3. Procedure
Developers may make these decisions as they see fit.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the
Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Make or override any decision authorised by the powers of the
Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority.
5. Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
statements.
These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
software must meet.
They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
1. A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
2. The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian Social
Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines".
3. A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its
supersession. New Foundation Documents are issued and existing
ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation Documents in
this constitution.
6. Make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to
Debian. (See �9.).
7. In case of a disagreement between the project leader and the
incumbent secretary, appoint a new secretary.
4.2. Procedure
1. The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A
resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
and sponsored by at least K other Developers, or if proposed by the
Project Leader or the Technical Committee.
2. Delaying a decision by the Project Leader or their Delegate:
1. If the Project Leader or their Delegate, or the Technical
Committee, has made a decision, then Developers can override
them by passing a resolution to do so; see �4.1(3).
2. If such a resolution is sponsored by at least 2K Developers,
or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the
resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided
that resolution itself says so).
3. If the original decision was to change a discussion period or
a voting period, or the resolution is to override the
Technical Committee, then only K Developers need to sponsor
the resolution to be able to put the decision immediately on
hold.
4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote
on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the
original decision will be delayed until then. There is no
quorum for this immediate procedural vote.
5. If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original
decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted.
3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote
the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting period
is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the Project
Leader.
4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
5. Proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other formal
actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic
mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any
Developer may post there.
6. Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. The
Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change their
votes.
7. Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. K
is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not be integers
and are not rounded.
5. Project Leader
5.1. Powers
The Project Leader may:
1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee.
The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a
specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the
Technical Committee.
Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.
2. Lend authority to other Developers.
The Project Leader may make statements of support for points of
view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise;
these statements have force if and only if the Leader would be
empowered to make the decision in question.
3. Make any decision which requires urgent action.
This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually
urgent through lack of relevant action, unless there is a fixed
deadline.
4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.
5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.
6. Together with the Technical Committee, appoint new members to the
Committee. (See �6.2.)
7. Use a casting vote when Developers vote.
The Project Leader also has a normal vote in such ballots.
8. Vary the discussion period for Developers' votes (as above).
9. Lead discussions amongst Developers.
The Project Leader should attempt to participate in discussions
amongst the Developers in a helpful way which seeks to bring the
discussion to bear on the key issues at hand. The Project Leader
should not use the Leadership position to promote their own
personal views.
10. In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See �9.).
Such decisions are communicated to the members by the Project
Leader or their Delegate(s). Major expenditures should be proposed
and debated on the mailing list before funds are disbursed.
11. Add or remove organizations from the list of trusted organizations
(see �9.3) that are authorized to accept and hold assets for
Debian. The evaluation and discussion leading up to such a decision
occurs on an electronic mailing list designated by the Project
Leader or their Delegate(s), on which any developer may post. There
is a minimum discussion period of two weeks before an organization
may be added to the list of trusted organizations.
5.2. Appointment
1. The Project Leader is elected by the Developers.
2. The election begins six weeks before the leadership post becomes
vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
3. For the first week any Developer may nominate themselves as a
candidate Project Leader, and summarize their plans for their term.
4. For three weeks after that no more candidates may be nominated;
candidates should use this time for campaigning and discussion. If
there are no candidates at the end of the nomination period then
the nomination period is extended for an additional week,
repeatedly if necessary.
5. The next two weeks are the polling period during which Developers
may cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept
secret, even after the election is finished.
6. The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
Above. If None Of The Above wins the election then the election
procedure is repeated, many times if necessary.
7. The decision will be made using the method specified in section
�A.6 of the Standard Resolution Procedure. The quorum is the same
as for a General Resolution (�4.2) and the default option is "None
Of The Above".
8. The Project Leader serves for one year from their election.
5.3. Procedure
The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers.
Where practical the Project Leader should informally solicit the views
of the Developers.
The Project Leader should avoid overemphasizing their own point of view
when making decisions in their capacity as Leader.
6. Technical committee
6.1. Powers
The Technical Committee may:
1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals,
developers' reference materials, example packages and the behaviour
of non-experimental package building tools. (In each case the usual
maintainer of the relevant software or documentation makes
decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).)
2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions
overlap.
In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical
policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the
priorities of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a command
name, or about which package is responsible for a bug that both
maintainers agree is a bug, or about who should be the maintainer
for a package) the technical committee may decide the matter.
3. Make a decision when asked to do so.
Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the
Technical Committee, or seek advice from it.
4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
implemented.
5. Offer advice.
The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its
views on any matter. Individual members may of course make informal
statements about their views and about the likely views of the
committee.
6. Together with the Project Leader, appoint new members to itself or
remove existing members. (See �6.2.)
7. Appoint the Chairman of the Technical Committee.
The Chairman is elected by the Committee from its members. All
members of the committee are automatically nominated; the committee
votes starting one week before the post will become vacant (or
immediately, if it is already too late). The members may vote by
public acclamation for any fellow committee member, including
themselves; there is no default option. The vote finishes when all
the members have voted, or when the voting period has ended. The
result is determined using the method specified in section A.6 of
the Standard Resolution Procedure.
8. The Chairman can stand in for the Leader, together with the
Secretary
As detailed in �7.1(2), the Chairman of the Technical Committee and
the Project Secretary may together stand in for the Leader if there
is no Leader.
6.2. Composition
1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers, and should
usually have at least 4 members.
2. When there are fewer than 8 members the Technical Committee may
recommend new member(s) to the Project Leader, who may choose
(individually) to appoint them or not.
3. When there are 5 members or fewer the Technical Committee may
appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6.
4. When there have been 5 members or fewer for at least one week the
Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of
members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per
appointment.
5. {+A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
6.+} If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
{+7. Term limit:
1. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically
reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the
terms of the 2 most senior members automatically expire
provided they were appointed at least four and a half years
(54 months) ago.
2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project
longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more
than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant.+}
6.3. Procedure
1. The Technical Committee uses the Standard Resolution Procedure.
A draft resolution or amendment may be proposed by any member of
the Technical Committee. There is no minimum discussion period; the
voting period lasts for up to one week, or until the outcome is no
longer in doubt. Members may change their votes. There is a quorum
of two.
2. Details regarding voting
The Chairman has a casting vote. When the Technical Committee votes
whether to override a Developer who also happens to be a member of
the Committee, that member may not vote (unless they are the
Chairman, in which case they may use only their casting vote).
3. Public discussion and decision-making.
Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members
of the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public
discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the Committee.
4. Confidentiality of appointments.
The Technical Committee may hold confidential discussions via
private email or a private mailing list or other means to discuss
appointments to the Committee. However, votes on appointments must
be public.
5. No detailed design work.
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
and policies. Such design work should be carried out by individuals
privately or together and discussed in ordinary technical policy
and design forums.
The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
Individual members of the technical committee may of course
participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy
work.
6. Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.
The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until
efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed,
unless it has been asked to make a decision by the person or body
who would normally be responsible for it.
7. The Project Secretary
7.1. Powers
The Secretary:
1. Takes votes amongst the Developers, and determines the number and
identity of Developers, whenever this is required by the
constitution.
2. Can stand in for the Leader, together with the Chairman of the
Technical Committee.
If there is no Project Leader then the Chairman of the Technical
Committee and the Project Secretary may by joint agreement make
decisions if they consider it imperative to do so.
3. Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution.
4. May delegate part or all of their authority to someone else, or
withdraw such a delegation at any time.
7.2. Appointment
The Project Secretary is appointed by the Project Leader and the
current Project Secretary.
If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree on
a new appointment, they must ask the Developers by way of General
Resolution to appoint a Secretary.
If there is no Project Secretary or the current Secretary is
unavailable and has not delegated authority for a decision then the
decision may be made or delegated by the Chairman of the Technical
Committee, as Acting Secretary.
The Project Secretary's term of office is 1 year, at which point they
or another Secretary must be (re)appointed.
7.3. Procedure
The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
Developers.
When acting together to stand in for an absent Project Leader the
Chairman of the Technical Committee and the Project Secretary should
make decisions only when absolutely necessary and only when consistent
with the consensus of the Developers.
8. The Project Leader's Delegates
8.1. Powers
The Project Leader's Delegates:
1. have powers delegated to them by the Project Leader;
2. may make certain decisions which the Leader may not make directly,
including approving or expelling Developers or designating people
as Developers who do not maintain packages. This is to avoid
concentration of power, particularly over membership as a
Developer, in the hands of the Project Leader.
8.2. Appointment
The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced
by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not
make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by
the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once
made.
8.3. Procedure
Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
9. Assets held in trust for Debian
In most jurisdictions around the world, the Debian project is not in a
position to directly hold funds or other property. Therefore, property
has to be owned by any of a number of organisations as detailed in
�9.2.
Traditionally, SPI was the sole organisation authorized to hold
property and monies for the Debian Project. SPI was created in the U.S.
to hold money in trust there.
SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals. Debian
is grateful for the legal support framework offered by SPI.
9.1. Relationship with Associated Organizations
1. Debian Developers do not become agents or employees of
organisations holding assets in trust for Debian, or of each other,
or of persons in authority in the Debian Project, solely by the
virtue of being Debian Developers. A person acting as a Developer
does so as an individual, on their own behalf. Such organisations
may, of their own accord, establish relationships with individuals
who are also Debian developers.
9.2. Authority
1. An organisation holding assets for Debian has no authority
regarding Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that
no decision by Debian with respect to any property held by the
organisation shall require it to act outside its legal authority.
2. Debian claims no authority over an organisation that holds assets
for Debian other than that over the use of property held in trust
for Debian.
9.3. Trusted organisations
Any donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a set
of organisations designated by the Project leader (or a delegate) to be
authorized to handle assets to be used for the Debian Project.
Organisations holding assets in trust for Debian should undertake
reasonable obligations for the handling of such assets.
Debian maintains a public List of Trusted Organisations that accept
donations and hold assets in trust for Debian (including both tangible
property and intellectual property) that includes the commitments those
organisations have made as to how those assets will be handled.
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
These rules apply to communal decision-making by committees and
plebiscites, where stated above.
A.1. Proposal
The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and
sponsored, as required.
A.1. Discussion and Amendment
1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed. Amendments
may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored according to the
requirements for a new resolution, or directly by the proposer of
the original resolution.
2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
match.
3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
will be voted on.
4. If an amendment accepted by the original proposer is not to the
liking of others, they may propose another amendment to reverse the
earlier change (again, they must meet the requirements for proposer
and sponsor(s).)
5. The proposer of a resolution may suggest changes to the wordings of
amendments; these take effect if the proposer of the amendment
agrees and none of the sponsors object. In this case the changed
amendments will be voted on instead of the originals.
6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is not
restarted.
A.2. Calling for a vote
1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
elapsed.
2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on
that resolution and all related amendments.
3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final
decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4).
4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last
formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was
proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted.
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a single
ballot that includes an option for the original resolution, each
amendment, and the default option (where applicable).
2. The default option must not have any supermajority requirements.
Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
have a 1:1 majority requirement.
3. The votes are counted according to the rules in A.6. The default
option is "Further Discussion", unless specified otherwise.
4. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
procedure.
A.4. Withdrawing resolutions or unaccepted amendments
The proposer of a resolution or unaccepted amendment may withdraw it.
In this case new proposers may come forward keep it alive, in which
case the first person to do so becomes the new proposer and any others
become sponsors if they aren't sponsors already.
A sponsor of a resolution or amendment (unless it has been accepted)
may withdraw.
If the withdrawal of the proposer and/or sponsors means that a
resolution has no proposer or not enough sponsors it will not be voted
on unless this is rectified before the resolution expires.
A.5. Expiry
If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of
the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.
The secretary may also include suggestions on how to proceed, if
appropriate.
A.6. Vote Counting
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred to
all unranked options. Voters may rank options equally. Unranked
options are considered to be ranked equally with one another.
Details of how ballots may be filled out will be included in the
Call For Votes.
2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other than the
default option which do not receive at least R votes ranking that
option above the default option are dropped from consideration.
3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
1. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who
prefer option A over option B.
2. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio
N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
3. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority
ratio is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.
4. From the list of undropped options, we generate a list of pairwise
defeats.
1. An option A defeats an option B, if V(A,B) is strictly greater
than V(B,A).
5. From the list of [undropped] pairwise defeats, we generate a set of
transitive defeats.
1. An option A transitively defeats an option C if A defeats C or
if there is some other option B where A defeats B AND B
transitively defeats C.
6. We construct the Schwartz set from the set of transitive defeats.
1. An option A is in the Schwartz set if for all options B,
either A transitively defeats B, or B does not transitively
defeat A.
7. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we drop
the weakest such defeats from the list of pairwise defeats, and
return to step 5.
1. A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if V(A,X) is less
than V(B,Y). Also, (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) if V(A,X) is
equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
2. A weakest defeat is a defeat that has no other defeat weaker
than it. There may be more than one such defeat.
8. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the winner is
chosen from the options in the Schwartz set. If there is only one
such option, it is the winner. If there are multiple options, the
elector with the casting vote chooses which of those options wins.
Note: Options which the voters rank above the default option are
options they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default options
are options they find unacceptable.
When the Standard Resolution Procedure is to be used, the text which
refers to it must specify what is sufficient to have a draft resolution
proposed and/or sponsored, what the minimum discussion period is, and
what the voting period is. It must also specify any supermajority
and/or the quorum (and default option) to be used.
B. Use of language and typography
The present indicative ("is", for example) means that the statement is
a rule in this constitution. "May" or "can" indicates that the person
or body has discretion. "Should" means that it would be considered a
good thing if the sentence were obeyed, but it is not binding. Text
marked as a citation, such as this, is rationale and does not form part
of the constitution. It may be used only to aid interpretation in cases
of doubt.
The Constitution is amended as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100
+++ constitution.txt.new 2014-11-18 14:00:38.352936175 +0100
@@ -299,8 +299,21 @@
Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of
members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per
appointment.
- 5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
+ 5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
+ Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
+ 6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
+ 7. Term limit:
+ 1. Membership of the Technical Committee is automatically
+ reviewed on the 1st of January of each year. At this time, the
+ terms of the 2 most senior members automatically expire
+ provided they were appointed at least four and a half years
+ (54 months) ago.
+ 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior
+ than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed
+ at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project
+ longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more
+ than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant.
6.3. Procedure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a transitional measure, if this GR proposal is passed after 2015-01-01,
then the first automatic review of membership of the Technical Committee
happens immediately.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature