On 23/11/14 at 12:32 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will > > propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option > > compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2. > > Fair enough. > > How about the transitional measure? I think it would be nice to have > uniformity on those. Would you agree to drop the transitional measures, > with the rationale that the CTTE has already have quite a bit of churn? > > I now think the above would be appropriate for both 2 and 2-R. To obtain > an equivalent result with 2-S I think the transitional measure should > retroactively trigger a review on January 1st, 2015; which will in turn > cause expiries only on December 31st, 2015. A transitional measure does not have any effect on 2-R anyway, due to the recent resignations. For "2", I agree that it would be better not to have expiries before 2016-01-01. Note that to achieve that without a transitional measure, the GR must pass on 2015-01-02 at the earliest; which means that the vote must not start before 2014-12-19, and that the discussion period must not start before 2014-12-05. It might not be worth waiting until then, so you might want to add a transitional measure such as: As a transitional measure, the first automatic review of membership of the Technical Committee will happen on 2016-01-01. > > However, as I am not sure if it's just me, or if there's wider support > > for 2-R, I will ask the secretary to not automatically accept the > > amendment (as an amendment from the DPL), but instead require it to > > reach the usual number of sponsors. > > I can't find the reference right now, but IIRC we've discussed this > during the init system coupling GR and I don't think it's possible: you > are DPL, if you introduce an amendment, it's automatically accepted. I > don't remember if the Secretary acknowledged that interpretation, but > reading of §4.2.1 doesn't seem to leave much room for interpretation. > So you could either ask someone else to propose the amendment, or gather > seconds informally yourself and only propose the amendment when you've > received K of them. According to <20141017174252.GB10521@roeckx.be>, I think it's possible. But maybe the Secretary can clarify. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature