[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 Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 12:34:16PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 01/12/14 at 18:44 +0000, Philip Hands wrote:
> > 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.
> Of course, it would be fine for future appointments. But we have one
> small problem with the current members:

FWIW, I'm fine either way.

I did discuss the possibility of dropping the tie-breaking helper about
seniority in Debian with Phil. I'm fine with the principle and like the
resulting increase in simplicity.  But I also discussed that possibility
with Lucas and he did prefer having some help from the Constitution to
avoid that we recur too often to the DPL tie breaking (as will happen in
the near future, apparently). Based on those discussions, I decided not
to remove the tie-breaking clause. But I don't particularly care either

If there is consensus that simplicity is preferable and Lucas won't mind
dealing with the upcoming ties (in a way that is constitutionally
sound), I'll be happy to formally accept an amendment to that end.

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

Reply to: