On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be: > 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD > I'm assuming your vote would be: > 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD > This is hard to reconcile. [...] > But I don't think that a ballot with several options is necessarily > very bad, as our voting system handles those cases just fine. > > What we should focus on is ensuring that it remains easy for everybody > to understand and rank the various options. Yes, that is the issue. What you propose (summaries with pro/cons) is of course a solution, but it requires quite a bit of work. And even if we do that work, the decision about how to vote would be more complex for DDs in comparison with a more straightforward yes/no ballot. And all this is, IMO, for relatively little gain, as we are essentially bikeshedding on minutiae at this point. Given that: - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the first choices in the hypothetical votes you proposed above (and in fact it was proposed by AJ precisely as a mediation among them) - 2-S seems to have received only positive reactions on this list would you refrain from proposing 2-R as an amendment if 2-S were to be the initial GR proposal? If so, I'd be happy to do the same for 2, and we can have a simple yes/no ballot. I.e., can we agree on 2-S as a mediation and simplify voting for everyone? For reference, I'm attaching the current version of the 2-S GR text. I'm still waiting to see if people object to that idea, but the only remaining change I'd like to apply to that proposal is to remove the transitional measure, on the basis of the fact that we've already had quite a bit of churn in the CTTE due to recent events. 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 »
The Constitution is amended as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100
+++ constitution.2-S.txt 2014-11-21 16:56:47.328071287 +0100
@@ -299,8 +299,20 @@
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. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member
+ who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one
+ of the two most senior members is set to expire on December
+ 31st of that year.
+ 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, the term of any Committee member who has served more
than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one of the two most senior members as of
January 1st, 2014 is set to expire one month after this GR is passed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature