Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
On 29 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>
> Dale> It was my understanding that this committee was very much a
> Dale> last resort feature, to be used only when the two sides of an
> Dale> issue were hopelessly deadlocked. Such circumstances should be
> Dale> quite obvious.
>
> What if there are no two parties? What if there is a complex
> technical issue at hand, and no one seems to be able to agree to a
> compromise solution? What if sch a problem relates to the project as
> a whole?
All this what-iffing doesn't tell me what it is that you want from the
rest of the committee.
>
> Dale> I was intrigued by your idea that the committee might refuse to
> Dale> hear a case. As we are the instrument of last resort, and the
> Dale> "final appeal", I'm not sure we want to take a position like
> Dale> that. I believe that requiring both sides to ask for a
> Dale> decission from us is enough protection from the abuses you
> Dale> fear.
>
> Well, that may well nueter the ctte. We may need to use the
> ctte to ram through technical solutions, which should never depend on
> a vote in the forst place. Ian has always contended that voting on
> technical issues is wrong, and I agree.
I have always agreed with Ian, but what does that have to do with "raming
through technical solutions", and what gives you the idea that the
technical committee was intended for such use?
>
> I would like to think of the ctte as analogous to the US
> supreme court -- the court of last appeal, which does reserve the
> right to refuse to hear cases. While also having the last word on all
> cases, there also exists a procedure that limits the number of cases
> presented to the court.
The supreme court's reasons for refusing to hear cases have to do with
issues that go far beyond those this committee is expected to deal with.
The technical committee has a very clear and specific mandate: resolve
technical difficulties that can not be resolved by the other means
provided by the contstitution.
As a committee under that same constitution, we are expected to determine
a committee chair, and our operating proceedures within the committee.
I agree that this committee has been sleeping, but only because we have
not yet been called upon.
It sounds like you would like to call upon this committee to decide
something, but are unwilling to approach the committee until its internal
processes have been decided. Is this the crux of your desires?
You know, that as a committee member who is going to bring a "question"
before the committee, you will be required to "requise"(sp) yourself from
the decission making processes of the committee?
>
> Dale> Is there some issue looming on the horizon that you think we
> Dale> need to plan for? For that matter, was there some reason to
> Dale> keep this to the ctte list? Could we use some public
> Dale> discussion on this?
>
> Yes, the re is an issue that I, and wichert, wish to raise
> before the ctte. However, I do not wish to cloud this debate with the
> specifics of the situation.
Since when is "presenting an issue" constitute clouding a debate?
You seem to be being purposfully evasive about what you want from this
committee at the same time you seem to be asking for some very firm
positions on our part.
>
>
> I was hoping for a quick consensus, since this was a minor
> procedural matter, but I should have known better ;-). We could move
> this to any other list, if you wish.
If you want "quick consensus" how can you suggest that we move the
conversation to a broader audience!
It sounds like what you are asking is for the committee to organize itself
so you and Wichert can make a proposal to an organized body through
understood channels. If that is what you want, why don't you just say so?
I hereby propose that we elect a chair for the committee and decide on a
proceedure for approaching this committee.
I would like to nominate Raul for the postion of chairperson, if he is
willing to serve.
Is this what you wanted?
Further I would suggest that the committee require specific conditions
before it can be asked to "rule" on a technical decission:
1. There should be an existing proposal with clear specifications.
2. There should have been enough discussion to make it clear that a
decission is not possible in a timely fashion.
3. Both "sides" of the debate must generate a specific proposal, with
justification, as a single proposal to the technical committee. (one
specification for each side, not one unified proposal)
4. The technical committee should have a short discussion period where
either one or the other proposals are clarified as "correct" or another
alternative is generated that the committee can agree on.
5. Once a decission is made, those policy changes that are necessary will
be directed to the Policy Group for inclusion in the Policy documents.
Is this what you were looking for Manoj?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: