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

Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee

>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> writes:

 Raul> Standards set up without any real experience are almost always wrong.
 Raul> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> 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
 Raul> rapidly.

        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
 Raul> pace.

        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   <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: