Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally
> create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at
> cross-purposes still, because I don't think what I am suggesting would
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> > I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally
> > create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at
> &
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally
> create substantial work for the TC. Perhaps we are talking at
> cross-purposes still, because I don't think what I am suggesting would
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> Could not follow your message enough to read. I may get back to it
> later when I have more spoons.
Oh I am very sorry. Raphael reminds me that column-formatted ascii
text is going to be difficult for you (and your s
> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
Didier> Hi all, could we re-focus this discussion on what qualities
Didier> the current Technical Committee Members want to find in new
Didier> TC members, please?
My current thinking based on the input we got from TC members is we
might
Hi all,
could we re-focus this discussion on what qualities the current
Technical Committee Members want to find in new TC members, please?
I'm not saying that the "process about handling new requests to the TC"
discussion is worthless to have, but it just feels like a hijack of that
bug log.
Could not follow your message enough to read. I may get back to it
later when I have more spoons.
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
> Ian> I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner
> Ian> requests, be subject to a quick vote on whether to preserve the
> Ian>
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
>> For what it's worth I don't support this sort of automated stuff.
Ian> Um, I'm confused. I did not suggest what I
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 a
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> j...@joshtriplett.org writes ("Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > At that point, I'd see it more like overrule maintaine
j...@joshtriplett.org writes ("Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > At that point, I'd see it more like overrule maintainer pending longer
> > discussion.
That would have been a much better answer to #76
> "josh" == josh writes:
josh> That's not a bad plan, actually. The three standard options
josh> could be, in effect, "preliminary injunction against the
josh> maintainer to avoid immediate harm, but we still need to talk
josh> about this more", "dismissed as completely inap
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes:
> Josh> Assuming that the "often results in FD" holds true, and that
> Josh> this doesn't encourage snap judgements, this seems like a very
> Josh> good idea to me.
>
> I think that exc
> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes:
Josh> Assuming that the "often results in FD" holds true, and that
Josh> this doesn't encourage snap judgements, this seems like a very
Josh> good idea to me.
I think that except in very special circumstances coming to any decision
other than FD
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Having an immediate vote (that often results in FD) everytime a new ctte
> bug gets filed seems like a plausible approach to ensure people get a
> quick initial response from the ctte though? eg:
>
> Bug#776708 arrived two hours ago. Let's vote!
>
> Resolution: overrule
Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 09.55:24 Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I'd like to have a discussion about what we want from TC members
> before we make a call for nominations.
Absolutely; I only opened a bug to put the question on our table, but
timing is clearly one aspect of the discussion surrounding the p
Don Armstrong writes:
> I personally cannot reasonably dedicate more than an hour or two a week
> to the CTTE, and I suspect that few people serving can either.
2 hours a week seems pretty consistent with what I think I've spent over
the years. The initsystem debate was a complete anomaly, I do
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I wonder if it would help to work from the other direction. What sort
> of turn around time would we expect for bugs like the menu policy and
> the aptitude maintainer issue?
>
> For an issue, someone has to put in a fair bit of leg work, going
> through a
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
Don> I think attendance at meetings as well as participation in
Don> threads, drafting, and voting is a requirement.
Don> I think that this amounts to between 1-6 hours a month of work;
Don> hopefully towards the low end of that spectrum for a
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members
> to have available for the TC.
>
> i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a
> high probability of being related to insufficient bandwidth in TC
> members. So, I
I'd like to have a discussion about what we want from TC members before
we make a call for nominations.
The biggest question I have is how much time do we expect TC members to
have available for the TC.
i think we've been having a lot of trouble that seems like it has a high
probability of being re
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: minor
User: tech-c...@packages.debian.org
Hi all,
following up after our latest tech-ctte IRC meeting [0], I propose to
hereby coordinate our decision-making process towards proposing two
candidate TC members to the DPL for a term starting in January next
year. I've r
23 matches
Mail list logo
