Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Ther5e are issues that are arising from the ongoing move to
>> FHS compliance that may need resolution through the technical
Raul> While that's always a possibility, I don't see you actually
Raul> describing these issues.
Of course not. I am trying to set up a process how we handle
issues in general, and talking about a particular issue would
be off topic.
Raul> Remember that the committee only needs to take action when the
Raul> handling by the package maintainers is unsatisfactory. [In the
Raul> case of FHS compliance this most likely means the handling by
Raul> maintainers of debian-policy and that whole process, but since
Raul> you're not describing any real issues even that is hard to
This is why I did not bring up a specific issue. I did not
want us so intrigued by the trees that we loose soght of the forest.
>> However, there are no public protocols or procedures to table a
>> proposal to the committee.
Raul> Sure there is: just send email to the committee (as you've done),
This is unworkable in the loing run, and does not scale
well. Sure, we can just let anyone send mail to the committee, and
have no policy about inappropriate messages.
The reason you think this may work is because the committeee
so far has been doing no work at all. I am trying to raise this
moribund body out of its collective lethargy and into doing something
Raul> with a description of the issue (which you've not done).
The reason I have not narrowed it down to a particular example
is so that we not cloud the main issue under discussion.
>> 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
Raul> I don't see it that way. I see it as power delegated by the
It does not matter from whom the power was delegated.
Raul> While the format is new (a small group of people), I see this as
Raul> just an extension of existing practice (mostly Bruce, but it
Raul> comes down to this: somebody has to do the work).
That description (someone doing work) does not fit the ctte at
all. In any case, that is a very specious rationale -- the king has
all the power because some has to do all the work.
Raul> Yeah, tech committee could get abusive (and have to be replaced).
Raul> But then, so could the leader.
I would rather we put some checks and balances in place rather
than waiting for a catastrohic failure.
>> 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 ;-).
Raul> We already have a mechanism available to us (it's called "dragging
Raul> our feet" and/or "not responding" and/or ...).
You may find this professional behaviour, but I do not. Just
because we have been sitting around doing nothing does not mean this
is what we should be doing. I personally find this suggestion
Raul> There have been fears about everything. I don't see that FUD
Raul> by itself is a particularly noble motivation for much of
I see. So unless the horse is stolen, there is no point
putting a lock on the barn door. Wonderful.
>> 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.
Raul> By the developer? You've just stated the procedure.
I believe that that would be unwise. (Analogy: the US supreme
Raul> At the moment I really don't see the need for more red tape.
As I said, I think it is better to have a process in place
before we actually really need it, and have to throw something in
place in haste.
>> 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.
Raul> So then we have a tech committee for referal of matters to the tech
That is a silly proposal, and I am glad I did not proposa
that. Think policy and general resolution: each proposal has a
primary and seconds, and that is what I propose here.
Raul> (1) This doesn't seem to solve any real problem
Provides a minimum threshold to refer a matter to the ctte,
and prevents frivolous proposals.
Raul> (2) This doesn't seem to build on any existing practice
Rubbish. The policy proposal, and the general resolution, both
require a certain number of seconds. This just adds the ctte to
existing practice on other resolution protocols.
Raul> (3) This isn't even a technical issue
So we can't talk about procedures relating to the technical
committee here cause that is not a te4chnical issue? How anal
retentive are we getting?
Raul> These points are related, in my opinion: and I think this whole
Raul> issue is outside the scope of the tech committee. [This is a
Raul> constitutional issue.]
In other words, we continue to do nothing until we have a
Love is the salt of life; a higher taste It gives to pleasure, and
then makes it last. -- Buckingham
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E