Re: Technical committee resolution
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it
> Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor
> for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats. There are
> better objective measure that would ensure hastening of the glacial
> pace and lack of follow through th tech ctte has.
When people are talking about limiting hats, obviously aren't talking
only about the ctte. And you're understanding that's only to improve
speed. Of all the problems of the core teams, speed perhaps is not the
worst, surely it's not the only one. Concentration of power and not
allowing new people are more important in my POV.
> Deciding things based on number of groups people are members of
> seems an arbitrary criteria, and little better than other
> similar rule I also posted about.
No, it is not arbitrary. Random exclusion, as you posted, is. It is
not arbitrary saying that you have been given enough power and trust
with one hat and that you should refrain from getting more of that.
That is arbitrary or unfair to you?
> > doesn't look good that he disregards ideas in that way, when he's a
> > interested party.
> This is the kind of censoring bullshit that does annoy me,
Calling bullshit on something I said is quite aggressive; I did not
insult you, I just pointed out that your attitude seemed (in my POV)
inappropriate, can you please calm down?
Also I'm not censoring you, I'm just saying that if we are discussing
something in which you are an interested party (as you would be
affected by the implementation of such ideas) you should be more
careful with your words, and avoid calling people bullshitters,
idiots, etc. Maybe I come from a different world, but I usually read
these kind of reactions as a way of avoid giving up any position of
power because of purely egotistic reasons, not because it's good for
the project. Now understand why I say that I think that the discussion
would be better and you will give a much better image of you if you
stopped flaming? Yes, you should care about what the rest of the
project thinks about you, since you have a position of power over the
rest of the project.
> though. By implication this is also insulting, and I have no idea qho
> you are, but you have no right to imply that I would participate in the
> discussion with personal motivation overriding what is good for the
I am just somebody who's been involved in the project for a few years,
that changes what can I express about this?
Saying that I "have no right to imply.." is censoring, too. And I'm
just implying what I clearly said above: you being a person with many
hats and your flaming reaction to pretty common rules in the outside
world makes me (and I think I'd not be the only one) doubt if your
motivation to reject the idea of restrictions on power seats comes
from a personal motivation or not. Sorry, I have the *right* to think
and express that, and since I'd never have the chance to vote (not
because of voting privileges) for the composition of any of these
teams, I feel more strongly about all this.
In any case, you are not discussing the ideas but a comment on
discussion style, you have just amplified this.
> Also, Just because I am a member of the ctte does not make me
> less qualified to state that some ideas are really bad. Last I looked,
> the DPL was not Stalin.
I never said you were less qualified.
> > It was also regarded silly the idea of people leaving the ctte after
> > some term... ideas that to me look entirely reasonable, and common
> > practice.
> Term limits? Seems like the project is better served sloughing
> off the dead wood off the board, not merely axing active members
I did not object removing inactive people.
> because some arbitary time limit has passed/
You think that the 1 year term for DPL is arbitrary too? What about
your country congress, president or whatever? Are those limits
Ah, and having a term limit doesn't imply forbidding
re-election/re-delegation, so good people would routinely get
refreshed their term.
> > I don't know about the tech ctte. but I don't think many people would
> > argue that many core teams would benefit greatly with those two rules.
> I have seen very little data supporting that assertion.
I guess that giving control of most important part of a project of
hundreds (or thousands) to a very few set of people, some of them
having too much power, and that some these people become inactive but
still don't allow other people to replace them is perfectly fine in
your POV. I must be watching the wrong channel.