On 9/6/22 01:09, Ansgar wrote:
You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images, and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even say that they have made decisions. So those options could be seen as overriding a Developer, using the power of the Technical Committee. Assuming we actually went that way, 6.1.4 requires a 3:1 majority, but 4.1.4 only a 2:1 majority. I think we take the highest majority requirement in that case, so 3:1.
I also disagree with the idea that a GR would require 3:1 to exercise a TC power. I'll try to illustrate that two different ways...
Imagine that 6.1.4 said the TC was required to be unanimous to overrule a Developer. It would not make sense to say that the Developers collectively had to be unanimous to exercise that power. 4.1.4 is the one relevant for a GR.
I think it is bad to transfer supermajority requirements among one group of voters (tech-ctte) to a very different group of voters (all DD).
Agreed.
Though I agree the constitution is not clear on this.
I personally think it's clear. Here's how I would look at it: Overriding a Developer is a power of the TC. (6.1.4) The TC exercises that power by committee vote 3:1. (6.1.4) The Developers exercise that power by GR vote 2:1. (4.1.4)
It might be better to just get rid of both supermajority requirements: if 50% of all DDs agree on some implementation detail, it's probably fine to do it that way.
I happen to agree (at least in the case of removing the 2:1 from 4.1.4, less sure about the other), but that'd be a separate GR to change.
-- Richard
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature