On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 03:46:49PM +0000, Philip Hands wrote: > > I think since this is a tie-breaker situation which will presumably > > rarely happen, it doesn't really matter much. > > How about: I don't think this is a problem that is worth solving with extra complexity in the text of the Constitution. If a tie ever happens, I think we can count on the responsibility of the involved CTTE members to agree between them on who should step down; and possibly on the fact that they will all resign. But I bite. I don't think it is a good idea to tie the tie breaking rule to specific technology (the email message used for the appointment, IDs in the Debian user database, etc). If people really want to add a tie breaking rule, the most straightforward one is specifying that *the DPL* will break any tie. That would allow to further simplify the text, as we could then drop the rule about "most senior project membership", and only keep CTTE seniority. As the DPL is de facto empowered to break ties in advance (by appointing one member after the other instead of simultaneously) this change won't add any loophole. (The only quirk is that the DPL who will break ties is most likely not the same who did the appointments. But the Constitution should treat the DPL as an institution, not as a specific person, so I don't really see a problem with this difference.) 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