[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 01:11:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> How would you implement that? By expliciting making the DPL the
> tie-breaking entity in that case, or by implicitely falling back to
> 5.1.4 "Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility."?

I had in mind to explicitly state that the DPL will break ties. But I
neither have a text ready that implements that, nor I have seen
proposals by others that do that.

I didn't think of §5.1.4, but I agree that that would be a nice way out
of over-specification. It'd be wise to run that idea through the current
secretary before counting on it, though.

> If you make it explicit, it would be better to clarify if the DPL who
> makes the decision is the DPL on January 1st, or on the following
> December 31st. Which might result on more verbosity that the current
> version, heh :-)

Good point.

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: