On 19/11/14 at 22:31 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> Technical Committee members are encouraged to serve for a term of
> between three and six years.
>
What, you seriously want to not increase the amount of Legalese in our
policy? The shame. :-P
> and six years as an upper bound since it gives a bit
> more flexibility than f
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
> > > we are going too far. I woul
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> Even if it were as ready, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a
> separate GR. Voting once instead of twice is nice for everyone, but
> conflating two separate decisions in a single GR has been proven to be
> unwise in t
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:18:36PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
> > automatically reappoint a current member:
> >
> > The social pressures here don't work very well. In general,
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:09:24PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I think that the "2-R" behaviour is more desirable, as it avoids 2 years
> without replacements in 2017 and 2018. Note that this isn't about the
> "2-R" rule as we could have the same behaviour by keeping the "2" rule
> and simply dr
On 19/11/14 at 19:13 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Russ's reaction to this was that it would be very hard not to
> automatically reappoint a current member:
>
> The social pressures here don't work very well. In general, any
> approach that has the existing committee decide whether to retain
On 19/11/14 at 19:21 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> > of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> > arguments below, but I d
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:20:21PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, J??r??my Bobbio wrote:
> > To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> > half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> > fed up tha
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55:28AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> That said, I now am convinced that "2" (without "salvaging" by expiries
> of non-senior members) is a better model than "2-R". I've pondered your
> arguments below, but I don't find them convincing. Specifically,
Note that with
An easy way to resolve the question about the "mandatory vacation
period" would be to just have both variants available when this goes to
GR? In other words, let the project decide whether that seems prudent.
For the record, as the now-longest-serving member of the TC, I'll be the
first person to
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
> Colin) is:
> aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
> bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
> cjwat
> On 19/11/14 at 15:20 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> [...]
>
> If someone is interested in doing that, it should be fairly easy to
> extract some metrics from UDD (date of last upload for each login,
> number of uploads over the last 12 months for each login, etc.), and
> then combine that w
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 06:31:31PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49:
> >-5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
> >+5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
> >+ Committee if they have been a me
* Stefano Zacchiroli , 2014-11-18, 21:49:
-5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
+5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
+ Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
+6. If the Technical Committe
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
...
>> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
>> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
>> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of expiring
>> the two most senior members?"
>> I thin
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:20:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> This is true only if you use the number of members as the measure for
> the "strength" of the TC. But if instead, you consider the sum of the
> experience of all members, more turnover due to resignations at a given
> point will have
Thanks,
Le 19/11/2014 14:16, Alberto Garcia a écrit :
> Some more data on turnout, if I didn't get anything wrong (there's a
> couple of numbers I couldn't find in vote.debian.org).
>
> The columns are
> Valid votes / No. of developers / Turnout / Description
>
> 482 / 908 = 53.08% General Res
Some more data on turnout, if I didn't get anything wrong (there's a
couple of numbers I couldn't find in vote.debian.org).
The columns are
Valid votes / No. of developers / Turnout / Description
86 / 357 = 24.08% Constitution
208 / 347 = 59.94% Leader Elections 1999
107 / 497 = 21.52% Log
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 07:54:47PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>
> > As far as I know Debian does not have a routinely executed exit procedure
> > where inactive DD's are being removed from the set. So looking at the
> > relation between voters
On 19/11/14 at 12:25 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I fear that, by reducing the average 'age' from 7.8 years to ~2 years,
> > we are going too far. I would like to make it easier, for some members,
> > to stay members of the T
On 19/11/14 at 11:55 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Now, let's assume that I'm a member of the TC, not among the two most
> > senior members, and that I feel a bit exhausted about that, not really
> > motivated, and not really
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> As far as I know Debian does not have a routinely executed exit procedure
> where inactive DD's are being removed from the set. So looking at the
> relation between voters and eligible voters doesn't lend itself to
> interpretation about th
On 19/11/14 at 15:20 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> > To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> > half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> > fed up that it doesn't mat
On Wed, November 19, 2014 10:51, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
As far as I know Debian does not have a routinely execute
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:37:25AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/11/14 at 21:49 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > +5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical
> > + Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months.
>
> Even if the possi
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:13:45AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (Elaborating on the context a bit given the discussion spread over some
> time -- two options have been proposed:
> - expire the 2 most senior members
> - expire the 2-R most senior members, with R the number of resignations
> over
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More
> than half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain
> business? So fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
If I got the data right from https://www.debian
Hi,
First, some data. The 'age' of each member of the TC (not excluding Russ and
Colin) is:
aba 2005-12-27 <8764pbxd9k@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>, 8.9y
bdale 2001-04-17 <20010417195420.i5...@visi.net>, ~13.6y
cjwatson 2011-08-24 <20110824160257.ga30...@upsilon.cc>, 3.2y
don 2009-01-
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:51:01AM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
> half didn't vote. Because the nominative tally sheet? Plain business? So
> fed up that it doesn't matter anymore?
I have a feeling which isn't backed by anything t
Hi!
I've been looking at the tally sheet for gr_initcoupling to try to get a
bit more understanding of the lines in the project. I'm not sure I've
managed to achieve that, but I thought I could share some stats anyway.
To start, there were 483 voters on 1006 voting developers. More than
half didn
On 19/11/14 at 10:13 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - The main change wrt the original text by Anthony is that the provision
> > of not expiring senior members if less-senior ones have resigned is
> > gone. In its stead, there is a provision that inhibits expiries from
> > reducing the CTTE
Le mercredi, 19 novembre 2014, 10.13:45 Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> The '2-R' schema could even result in an internal TC discussion: "OK,
> the Project wants us to change two members. Are there people that feel
> like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of
> expiring the two mos
On 18/11/14 at 11:33 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Here is a draft GR text which builds on Anthony's work and implements
> some of the aspects discussed in this thread. See below for
> comments/rationales and the attachment for a wdiff.
>
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
