Re: Technical committee resolution
Clint Adams <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst
>> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the
>> tech-ctte needs to make decisions for the project that the project can
>> then implement. Yes, this has been a weakness already, but one way in
>> which that could be addressed is by having *more* tech-ctte members who
>> are on core teams so that they can go make the resolution happen.
> This is at odds with the "Judicial branch" metaphor and the current
> conflict-resolution duties of the ctte. If there is overlap between the
> people resolving the conflict and the people introducing or fomenting
> it, then I think the structure is doomed from the get-go.
>> For an entirely theoretical example, if the tech-ctte were to make a
>> decision about what software is acceptable to include in the archive
>> and Jeorg were on the tech-ctte, I think it would be more, not less,
>> likely that the decision would then be implemented.
> That would seem to undermine attempts to decentralize power and achieve
> proper segregation of duties, in keeping with Manoj's aims.
Certainly true. This is a benefit that runs exactly contrary to
decentralization of power and segregation of duties.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>