[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Suggestion to simplify clause 2. (was: Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte)

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:

> On Monday, December 01, 2014 04:59:53 PM Colin Tuckley wrote:
>> On 01/12/14 16:50, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > As an amendment, I propose the transitional measure be removed.
>> Why not support the amendment from Lucas instead which has more or less
>> the same effect?
> It has the ~same effect right now, but behaves differently in the future.  When 
> we vote, I think it would be a better choice if the transitional language 
> weren't there.  I'd like to see all the options be as good as possible before 
> the vote.

In the spirit of making things as good as possible before the vote, I'll
mention an idea that was kicked around earlier, and seemed to meet with
a fair amount of approval, just to see if people at large prefer it:

We could simply remove the sub-clauses about tie-breaking in 2.

There's no need for the situation ever to arise as long as we establish
a custom (which need not be defined in the constitution) that the DPL
always makes it clear that appointments to the TC happen in series.

Then there would never be any simultaneous appointments, so we'd never
need a tie-breaker.  Even if a DPL forgets that, there will be an
official announcement, and we could just decide (or the DPL could later
declare) that the order the names appeared in the announcement was the
order of appointment.  It's not as though it's vitally important, and if
people like the "age in the project" tie-breaker the DPL just needs to
appoint people in that order and that gives us the same effect.

We could perhaps replace part 2 of the proposals with something like:

   2. Seniority in this context is a measure of how long a member has
   served in their current term on the committee: whoever was appointed
   first is considered to be the more senior.

I'm not proposing this as an amendment yet, but if it meets with general
approval, I will, and it it seems to upset anyone I'll just drop it.
I'd personally prefer the simplicity, but I'm unwilling to make a fuss
about it.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: pgp7XPu1MwzRF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: