Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ther5e are issues that are arising from the ongoing move to
> FHS compliance that may need resolution through the technical
While that's always a possibility, I don't see you actually describing
Remember that the committee only needs to take action when the handling by
the package maintainers is unsatisfactory. [In the case of FHS compliance
this most likely means the handling by maintainers of debian-policy and
that whole process, but since you're not describing any real issues even
that is hard to say.]
> However, there are no public protocols or procedures to table a
> proposal to the committee.
Sure there is: just send email to the committee (as you've done),
with a description of the issue (which you've not done).
> Personally, I think the tech committee has too much power
> contained in too few hands for it to be involved in any situation but
> that of the last resort, or for it to act ininvited or on its own
I don't see it that way. I see it as power delegated by the leader.
While the format is new (a small group of people), I see this as
just an extension of existing practice (mostly Bruce, but it
comes down to this: somebody has to do the work).
Yeah, tech committee could get abusive (and have to be replaced).
But then, so could the leader.
> I posit that we also need a protocol that would prevent abuse
> of this process (there have been fears that once this process is
> widely known, then certain people shall tend to submit frivolous
> RFC(larifications) whenever their whim is thwarted ;-).
We already have a mechanism available to us (it's called "dragging
our feet" and/or "not responding" and/or ...).
There have been fears about everything. I don't see that FUD by itself
is a particularly noble motivation for much of anything...
> Under the powers of this committee, the constitution states
> that any devreloper or group may refer a decision to the committee,
> but does not define any procedures that need be followed.
By the developer? You've just stated the procedure.
At the moment I really don't see the need for more red tape.
> What would teh committee feel about a requirement that either
> the project leader, or a group of developers (not less than 5,
> possibly 10), can submit a *technical* problem, and optionally a
> proposed solution, to be considered by the committee? The committee
> would retain the right to refuse to consider a proposal, of course.
So then we have a tech committee for referal of matters to the tech
(1) This doesn't seem to solve any real problem
(2) This doesn't seem to build on any existing practice
(3) This isn't even a technical issue
These points are related, in my opinion: and I think this whole
issue is outside the scope of the tech committee. [This is a