Hi, 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. Hi, 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 https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2005/12/msg00042.html and the DPL confirmed their appointment in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00013.html However: - 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. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature