Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Raul> Standards set up without any real experience are almost always wrong.
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
>> We are not talking about standards here, for gods sake. We are
>> not even talking Policy. We are twalking about setting up guidelines,
>> and something that can be adapted as we go along. Jumping in without
>> even tinking about scalable methods is unwise.
Raul> Scalable? If the technical committee needs to scale up that
Raul> means that Debian's technical standards are changing incredibly
Rubbish. It may ,erely mean that some clowns have discovered a
way to second guess evbery other decision making porocess in the
project, and are swamping us with frivolous requests. How *do* you
propose to handle frivoulous request? pretend we don't exist?
Raul> Even if this were an issue, it's very likely that the best way
Raul> to handle such a situation would involve proceeding at a sedate
I see. I guess this explains why official processes in the
project seem to be dead air (all teh noise I hear about the new
maintainer group, the ftp group, etc, is just people proceeding at
glacial pace. Sorry,, hiding my head in the sand is not really an
option I care to exercise.
Raul> Also, remember that the committee isn't a design body, it's an
Raul> approval body -- someone needs to submit a completed proposal
Raul> to the committee. The committee has some latitude on what they
Raul> do with a proposal (and, I suspect that the most useful work
Raul> the comittee will do involves sending proposals back to the
Raul> submitter with recommendations and/or criticisms), but it's not
Raul> like the debian-policy list where people are hashing out the
Raul> details of policy.
I assume you are familair with the powers imparted to the ctte
in the constitution.
Raul> Except that (a) there are no venture capitalists involved (a good
Raul> thing too), (b) we already have an extensive set of guidelines laid
Raul> out in the constitution.
I say no guidelines for proposing anything to the ctte --
including what you said above about comlete proposals. Where are you
gettihng that from?
Raul> Which reminds me, your suggestion about a committee for approving
Raul> the submission of proposals to the technical committee seems to
Raul> conflict with 6.1.3 of the constitution:
Raul> Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own to the
Raul> Technical Committee, or seek advice from it.
WHAT? WHERE the HECK did you get that from? Quote me chapter
and verse please, and tell me when I proposed a committee for
approving the submission of proposals to the technical committee.
You are obviously not reading what I sayu, so this discussion
may well be pointless.
Raul> Finally, I really don't see that the technical committee is so dangerously
Raul> powerful [which I think you've been implying]. For example, if we had
Raul> made any decisions, they could have been overturned with a 15:7 vote by
Raul> the developers. And, 10 developers could have decided that a decision
Raul> needed to be put on hold, leading up to a potential overturning vote...
Raul> [And for some decisions even less than that's needed.]
Hmm. I _had_ forgoten that ... you may have a point here.
If you know the answer to a question, don't ask. Petersen Nesbit
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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