bureaucracy (Re: Developer Status)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Joerg nominated teams, not persons.
My "and the people involved" should be read as
"and the number of teams involved".
I don't think "nominated" is the correct term here. Joerg did
not nominate the secretary for anything, as far as I can tell.
;-) You are right. First meaning of nominate: "To mention or specify
by name". In this case was "roles" not "names". Thus I would better
s/"nominated"/"listed"/.
(I'm lucky to speak a Latin derived language: most of times
my guesses are still correct, but maybe archaic)
The number of teams increment the bureaucracy (changing
the proposal, coordination), and doesn't fit the Debian
structure (role [proposers] vs. hierarchical [proposal]).
Huh? The people Joerg talked to were people who would be
affected by the proposal. For example, the secretary was called in to
comment since this proposal would require changes in the coting
pmechnism, and I was invited to give feedback on how big a change that
would be.
Also, he watned to ask about the constitutionality of the
proposal.
I don't see how this solicitation of early feedback in any way
adds to the bureaucratic angle.
Could you write it in a simpler manner. I think I understand your use
of "solicitation", but Wikipedia writes (first sentence): "In the
United States, solicitation is a crime". I don't think you mean that
crime.
Not the plain "solicitation", but the "need to solicitate" so many
people. All these people are affected by the proposal, and I was
predicting how these people will handle the proposal? how they
will interact each other? How many policies will have from
every groups? (e.g. names/loginname, expirations, checks,...)
How to pass new contributor between teams? Who will care that
applications are not forgot in some internal (thus bureaucratic)
step? (Remember the problem with NM waiting account)
We had problem with busy key people, this proposal will give
further burden to such the key people.
So probably they will nominate (delegate) powers to new people,
possibly with new role (helper, assistant), with rules and bureaucracy.
We will have problems with some people, so how to deal with such
problem? The roles listed by Joerg need to agree how to handle
such cases ("sign", i.e. bureaucracy), hoping they are not
to much busy or temporary MIA.
ciao
cate
Reply to: