Ian Jackson <[email protected]> writes: > I think I agree. Perhaps we should offer that as the only option for > change.
> How about this: > In Constitution 6.3 (wdiff -i): > 3. Public [-discussion and-] decision-making. > [-Discussion,-] > Draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members > of the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public > discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the Committee. > Rationale: > On occasion we have been asked to decide on controversial matters > such as maintainership of packages. Allowing the TC to officially > hold private conversations will make it much easier for us to take > on a mediation role, which necessarily involves talking to each side > in private. > It will also make it easier for people to informally seek the advice > of the TC. On a number of occasions recently, enquirers have > emailed TC members' personal addreses to sound out our opinions. > This has worked well; however it is not clear that Constitution > permits it. This situation should be regularised. > Actual decisionmaking will still take place in public of course. This looks fine to me. > I still think we should formally allocate issues to TC members as they > come in. I'm also okay with this, and I'm happy to take on more issues. I'm trying to drive our current issues through to completion as much as I can right now, as you've probably noticed. > Do you agree that the maximum size should be increased ? It would > look something like this perhaps: I'm not sure on this. To me, it hasn't felt like our problems have so much been with manpower as with an unwillingness to just create a ballot and vote on something. The conversation drifts into silence rather than resulting in a call for votes. I think we should try to be better at recognizing the point of diminishing returns and call for a vote, which would let us handle things more efficiently. Separately, though, I do agree with checking with the current TC members to see if they have time to devote to the TC going forward. > In Constitution 6.2(1) and (2), increase the maximum size of the > Technical Committee from 8 to 12. > Rationale: > The TC is currently at its maximum size of 8. However TC members > tend to be very busy people so there is still something of a > shortage of effort. We would like to have the option to increase > the size of the committee to see if that helps get decisions made in > a more timely fashion. I don't actually disagree with this, though, and I'd probably vote for it. I'm just not sure it's horribly important. >>> In the past the Technical Committee have been slow and reluctant >>> to overrule a maintainer unless all the members are absolutely >>> convinced that the maintainer's decision was wrong. >>> Option A: This is the correct approach. >>> Option B: TC members should be willing to vote to overrule >>> if they feel that the maintainer's decision was wrong; >>> the supermajority requirement is sufficient to guard >>> against overruling in questionable cases. >> Hm. That's interesting, yes. I have no idea what the outcome of that >> vote would be, and I'd be curious to see how it turned out. I think >> this should be a separate GR, though; I don't think it's really related >> to the above procedural issues. > Certainly, yes, but we should hold it concurrently. > Do you have any opinions about wording, rationale, etc. ? I'm okay with the wording above, personally. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
