Re: Technical committee resolution
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> > When people are talking about limiting hats, obviously aren't talking
> > only about the ctte.
> The proposal was to limit the presence of many-hat-bearers from
> serving on the ctte.
Ok, I was thinking and speaking about limiting hats in a context of
doing it project-wise, not only to the ctte. Sorry for the confusion.
> > 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.
> That would be a project wide issue, and should not be termed
> "Technical committee resolution". As for as concentration of powers,
> the constitution does address it, to an extent: it limits the overlap
> between non-delegate positions. The delegates do not need such a
Agreed, but that limitation is restricted to very few posts (ctte
chairman, dpl, secretary).
> constitutional limit, since the DPL can always delegate someone else to
> the position.
I'm not so sure if the DPL with its very limited powers could stand
doing that change. Of course, I see this as a current problem in the
balance of power.
> The DPL is also free to not delegate someone who they think has
> too many hats; I am not sure why a GR is needed about delegations of an
> elected DPL.
A constitutional change that restricts the hat allocation maybe would
be more effective.
> > 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?
> It is a vote of no confidence, certainly. But this again is
I don't think so. It's a way of protecting the project as a whole.
> something the DPL controls, no? Everyone not on the ctte, or a DPL, or
> a secretary, is a delegate *of the dpl*. The DPL can choose not to
> delegate a postion to someone who has too much power.
>From what I could gather there are still several key roles which are
not delegated officially.
> Not quite. You finding my behaviour inappropriate would not have
> bothered me (why would I care?). You were imposing a different standard
> on me _because_ I held a position with additional duties. That double
> standard is what I would consider censorship, highly deplorable,
> disgusting, and worthy of raising a stink about.
OK, please forgive me if you found that insulting. I don't think it's
a double standard, but I think that there are additional
responsibilities that come with power.
> Why? Why should I change my behaviour because I hold such a
> position? Because speaking straight might cost me the position?
Not at all, all I asked was to change the tone.
> If someone comes up with a bad proposal, I will still call a
> spade a spade.
OK, it's fine.
> Or are you saying you are sure I am shooting down the silly
> proposals just to retain my seat on the ctte?
No, I'm not sure. I really hope that it's not the case.
> When you start accusing people of ulterior motives, all style
> has already been lost.
I really don't want to continue this. I was pointing that in my POV
your tone in this discussion should be less condescending and
aggressive, call it a double standard if you like. If you want to keep
that style and make people raise eyebrows, that's fine with me. I
don't care about this.
> > 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.
> Straw man. Amusing how you take my proposal (to find inactive
> members, or less active members, and bring their heads to the block
> first), adopt my ideas as your own, and then turn around and castigate
> me for being opposed to my own idea.
Do you realise that I was talking about "many core teams" (sic) and
not about the ctte (and that was what you dismissed)?