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

Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte

On Monday, December 01, 2014 09:12:47 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 11:50:27AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > We discussed, and I thought there was consensus around, the idea that
> > due to the recent ctte churn, the transitional measure was no longer
> > needed.
> You recall correctly, but a simple removal of the transitional measure
> would have very different effects on the various proposals.  So what I
> did instead is to try to uniform the *effects* of the various proposals,
> so that the removal (or not) of transitional measures would result in
> the same net result --- as much as permitted by the intrinsic
> differences in the proposals, that is.
> I've done that between draft #2 and draft #3 (as usual, based on my own
> perception of consensus) and discussed the rationale behind my choices
> when announcing the last draft [1]. It would have been useful to hear
> about this back then.
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html
> But right now, I'm not sure to understand what your main concern is, and
> I'd appreciate if you could elaborate a bit more. With the current
> transitional measure, the proposal 2-S will de facto do nothing for a
> full year. The first expiries will kick in only on January 1st, 2016.
> That is the same that you would obtain with, say, proposal without any
> transitional measure.
> If you propose an amendment for 2-S ("my" proposal, the one that seems
> to have received enough seconds now) to remove the transitional measure,
> that will mean that the first expiries will happen on January 1st, 2017.
> That's 2 years before seeing any effect whatsoever for the GR. Yes,
> we've had some churn in the tech-ctte as of lately, but IMHO not that
> much to justify such a delay.
> Is that the goal you actually want to achieve?
> Cheers.

Yes.  The goal of the proposals is to turn over approximately two per year and 
we've just lost three, so I think that's reasonable.  It also puts an forced 
retirements well past the recent turmoil and the Jessie release.

When making something as fundamental as constitutional change, I think it's 
good to have it only affect things far enough in the future that people's 
emotions about today are less likely to be wrapped up in it.

After quite some period of  minimal turnover, we're already ahead of the game.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: