On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:39:06 +0200 Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <[email protected]> wrote: > - #795855 > Introduction of formal cloture vote for the TC > > - #795857 > TC chair appointment
Given context, I think these originally shotgunned proposals (especially these two) need careful re-evaluation, to figure out how much actual point they have and how much they're just a reflection of a past spite. The "cloture" proposal honestly seems like a needless pile of additional process. Anyone can call for a vote at any time, and I don't think that's a bug; if people agree that a vote is warranted, they can vote, and if they don't, they can vote "further discussion". If even a simple majority is opposed to holding a vote, they can all vote "Further Discussion". Anyone else can *also* call for a vote at any time, if they feel there's another issue to discuss. So, I would suggest that the "cloture" proposal should be consigned to a historical note along with the fit of pique it came from. For 795857, the TC chair process, there is indeed a lack of documented process for how and when the TC chair is determined; I think the suggestion Bdale referenced makes sense, to re-evaluate this in light of the new term limits: On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:36:28 +0200 Bdale Garbee <[email protected]> wrote: > The suggestion someone made somewhere during this discussion that I > liked the best was quite simple. Every time there is a change in the > membership of the TC, we should have a vote on who should serve as > chair. Given the term limits now in place, that would guarantee a > fairly regular need to vote on the TC chair. - Josh Triplett
