[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

 Dale> On 29 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 Dale> All this what-iffing doesn't tell me what it is that you want from the
 Dale> rest of the committee.

        Creatre and publicize a process by which people can submit
 issues to the committee. This method has to be one that leaves the
 committee accesible to all developers, but has a reasonable potential
 for preventing the committee from getting swamped by frivolous

 Dale> I have always agreed with Ian, but what does that have to do
 Dale> with "raming through technical solutions", and what gives you
 Dale> the idea that the technical committee was intended for such
 Dale> use?

        The constitution does not rule that out. We 

 Dale> The supreme court's reasons for refusing to hear cases have to
 Dale> do with issues that go far beyond those this committee is
 Dale> expected to deal with.

        So they hear different cases. So what? In either case, I think
  a measure is needed to prevent a denial of service attack ;-)

 Dale> The technical committee has a very clear and specific mandate: resolve
 Dale> technical difficulties that can not be resolved by the other means
 Dale> provided by the contstitution.

 Dale> As a committee under that same constitution, we are expected to
 Dale> determine a committee chair, and our operating proceedures
 Dale> within the committee.

        And bring us up to quorum (we need 6 active members, I

 Dale> I agree that this committee has been sleeping, but only because we have
 Dale> not yet been called upon.

 Dale> It sounds like you would like to call upon this committee to decide
 Dale> something, but are unwilling to approach the committee until its internal
 Dale> processes have been decided. Is this the crux of your desires?

 Dale> You know, that as a committee member who is going to bring a
 Dale> "question" before the committee, you will be required to
 Dale> "requise"(sp) yourself from the decission making processes of
 Dale> the committee?

        Why? Where does this requirement come from? This is a
 technical issue, not an emotional one. My technical ability does not
 suddenly die if I make a proposal. (recuse is the word you are
 looking for). In fact the constituion says:
     <li>The Technical Committee uses the Standard Resolution Procedure.
          A draft resolution or amendment may be proposed by any
          member of the Technical Committee. There is no minimum
          discussion period; the voting period lasts for up to one
          week, or until the outcome is no longer in doubt. Members
          may change their votes. There is a quorum of two.

        No detailed design work.
          The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
          and policies. Such design work should be carried out by individuals
          privately or together and discussed in ordinary technical policy and
          design forums.

        The committee is ot expected to do the design, but any
 individual may do so -- even a member (who does not give up his
 rights as a developer.

 Dale> Since when is "presenting an issue" constitute clouding a debate?

        I wish that we have a process for presenting issues to the
 tech ctte before I present an issue. 

 Dale> You seem to be being purposfully evasive about what you want from this
 Dale> committee at the same time you seem to be asking for some very firm
 Dale> positions on our part.

        Evasive? Evasive? I have beeen asking for a process to allow
 people to submit issues before the committee. If we decide that a
 simple email is enough (against my objections), then so be it. All I
 am asking for a resolution to that issue, and all I get is grilling
 about what I may be presenting here in the future. How are these

 >> 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.

 Dale> If you want "quick consensus" how can you suggest that we move the
 Dale> conversation to a broader audience!

        You are the one who asked it to be moved, not I. I said that
 the reason it was *not* before a broader audince was that I wanted a
 quick consensus, which we obviously do not have.

 Dale> It sounds like what you are asking is for the committee to
 Dale> organize itself so you and Wichert can make a proposal to an
 Dale> organized body through understood channels. If that is what you
 Dale> want, why don't you just say so?

        What the heck do you think I have been saying? 

 Dale> I hereby propose that we elect a chair for the committee and
 Dale> decide on a proceedure for approaching this committee.


 Dale> I would like to nominate Raul for the postion of chairperson, if he is
 Dale> willing to serve.

 Dale> Is this what you wanted?

 Dale> Further I would suggest that the committee require specific conditions
 Dale> before it can be asked to "rule" on a technical decission:

 Dale> 1. There should be an existing proposal with clear specifications.

        You are then limiting the powers that the constitution
 provides this ctte. On what grounds?  (The Technical Committee may 
 o Decide on any matter of technical policy.
 o Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions
 o Make a decision when asked to do so
 o Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
 o Offer advice.

        Not all these require there be an existing proposal. 

 Dale> 2. There should have been enough discussion to make it clear that a
 Dale> decission is not possible in a timely fashion.

        This again violates the constituion. 
          Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to
          the Technical Committee, or seek advice from it.

        There is no provision that a decision is not possible.

 Dale> 3. Both "sides" of the debate must generate a specific proposal, with
 Dale> justification, as a single proposal to the technical committee. (one
 Dale> specification for each side, not one unified proposal)

        This fails if there are no two sides to a debate. If a
 technical problem exists, and the developers can't find a solution,
 the tech ctte may step in. 

 Dale> 4. The technical committee should have a short discussion period where
 Dale> either one or the other proposals are clarified as "correct" or another
 Dale> alternative is generated that the committee can agree on.

        This applies to a subset of cases that the constituion says
 the ctte acts on. 

 Dale> 5. Once a decission is made, those policy changes that are necessary will
 Dale> be directed to the Policy Group for inclusion in the Policy documents.

 Dale> Is this what you were looking for Manoj?

        Well, it is a start.

 "Yes, and I feel bad about rendering their useless carci into
 dogfood..." Badger comics
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: