Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:12:13 +0000, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> said:
[...]
> 3) 2-s I think would expire 1 person, because Ian was in s, right?
> 4) Anthony's new proposal would schedule the two most senior folks to
> expire at end of 2015, right? So you'd have up to 5 experienced folks
> through most of 2015.
As the person who suggested 2-S, I think that Anthony's proposal has the
same practical effect after the upcoming year, and preferred Anthony's
wording. So I think of them as being essentially the same, and I
wouldn't want both on the ballot. Of course for the purposes of your
comparison, they are different, but we can treat them the same if we
pretend that Anthony's proposal has a transitional measure clause that
said that the two most senior members of the TC as of 2014-01-01 had
their memberships set to expire on 2014-12-31. (I don't have an opinion
on whether we should have such a transitional measure clause.)
There's also the 2-R' proposal, and for the record, I would prefer not
to have both 2-R' and 2-S on the ballot, because I consider them similar
enough that I think that having an extra option on the ballot would do
more harm than good. On the other hand, I would not oppose having both
on the ballot. It's just that if someone formally proposes 2-R' for
voting on, I personally would not propose 2-S.
--
Hubert Chathi <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Reply to: