Russ Allbery writes (Re: Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for
super-majority within the tech ctte):
* Explicitly being allowed to have private discussions on the subject
of who should maintain a particular package. The options should be:
- private discussions when we feel
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [120320 13:01]:
This would be in the form of a TC resolution along these lines:
For the purposes of accepting or rejecting amendments to this GR
proposal, according to Constitution A.1(2), we delegate to name
the power to accept
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk 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
Stefano Zacchiroli lea...@debian.org writes:
Let me then re-propose something that I have proposed at DebConf11 (or
was it DebConf10?) during the tech-ctte session. I suggest to the
tech-ctte to hold periodic public IRC meetings, *just* to go through the
list of open issues. It can be as
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
I would be willing to make time to attend a public IRC meeting for
this purpose.
I would as well. I believe we are all primarily in Europe and North
America, so this should be fairly easy to do, even if it's just for
15-30 minutes every month.
Don
Don Armstrong writes (Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority
within the tech ctte):
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
I would be willing to make time to attend a public IRC meeting for
this purpose.
I would as well. I believe we are all primarily in Europe
Andreas Barth a...@ayous.org writes:
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120319 05:10]:
I would be happy to go forward with the GR to fix the supermajority rule
by itself, since I think it's uncontroversial and could be easily passed.
Good. In that case I think we should just call for votes,
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Andreas Barth writes:
As I got no further comments from other people of the tech ctte, this
can only mean that everyone agrees with this version, or is not
interessted.
I think the version I quote (as amended) is the best.
I agree with
Andreas Barth writes (Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority
within the tech ctte):
+ 2. An option A defeats the default option D provided that:
+ (a) V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A); and
+ (b) if a supermajority of N:1
* Peter Palfrader (wea...@debian.org) [110814 22:11]:
Hey,
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011, Anthony Towns wrote:
- 2. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio
-N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
- 3. If a supermajority of S:1 is
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 07:48, Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
Therefor, I propose to replace this by:
A.6.3.2:
| An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio of 1,
| if V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A). An option A defeats the
| default option D by a majority
* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [110806 11:31]:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 07:48, Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org wrote:
Therefor, I propose to replace this by:
A.6.3.2:
| An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio of 1,
| if V(A,D) is strictly greater than
Package: tech-ctte
Hi,
I'm asking the tech ctte to propose the following GR. Reason for going
via the tech ctte is that this is really only relevant for the tech
ctte.
A.6.3.2 currently says:
| An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if
| V(A,D) is strictly greater than
13 matches
Mail list logo
