Re: Technical committee resolution
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <email@example.com> said:
> I saw multiple people suggesting such limits. I did NOT see anyone
> propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which people
> were performing their job. I was just proposing an alternate reason
> to yours. If the proposers of such limits had stated that they think
> it would aid in the speed at which things got done, they eluded me.
That is not quite right. I have not presumed to know what
reasons other people might have had for limits, nor did I propose a
rationale for limits; I have merely expressed my opinion about one
cause for the deficiencies in the tech ctte's performance. I have
suggested that this cause (lack of time pr participation) has an
observable metric, and that metric could be used to aid decisions about
the composition of the cotte, rather than just setting some arbitrary
> Are you implying that my hypothetical shouldn't be advanced here?
Having seen no concrete rationale, I have no idea whether your
hypothetical has any value or not. Did I not invite you tpo present any
Q: What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous? A: A canary with
the super-user password.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C