Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff.Um, I'm confused. I did not suggest what I would think of `automated stuff'. That is, I am not suggesting there should be a robot, or an absolute rule. I am suggesting that the TC should have, effectively, a standing rule that this is the /normal/ way to proceed: I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner requests, be subject to a quick vote on whether to preserve the status quo (perhaps by overruling to at least temporarily revert a recent maintainer decision). This should be documented somewhere so that a submitter knows they can request it. > I'm much more interested in empowering people than having formal > processes. I think it would be helpful to add some guidelines on the usual workflow. Suppose it is usually the case that there is an initial fast vote between (a) "revert this for at least 3 months, while TC thinks about it more seriously" (b) "this merits TC consideration but TC is not going to interfere just yet" and perhaps (c) "there does not appear to be anything worth dealing with here". If so it would be useful to write this down somewhere, so that people outside the TC can expect it (and know what (a) means and when it is likely to occur). It would also allow the TC to consider once and for all whether (c) is a respectful enough thing to put on these ballots. Writing it down would also mean that the form of the ballot would depend less on who happens to read their email that day. > And in this instance, I think TC members are more likely to do a better > job of drafting ballots and the like than submitters. Perhaps the submitter should offer a draft ballot which the first TC member would reword if they felt it appropriate. The wiki page could have a template, too. Ian.
