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

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


On 01/12/14 at 18:44 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
> 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.


Of course, it would be fine for future appointments. But we have one
small problem with the current members:
Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth were appointed on the same date.
The TC recommended their addition in
and the DPL confirmed their appointment in

- Steve would be more senior if we used the 'age in the project' rule
  (DD since 2001-01-14, vs 2004-01-16 for Andreas)
- Steve was listed first in both the recommendation and the appointment
  emails (contrary to the alphabetical order), so one could argue that
  he was appointed first.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: