Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Raul> You mean like the occasional message which should have gone to
Raul> debian-user? We have the option of politely telling them where
Raul> to go, or we have the option of ignoring them. I'd suggest that
Raul> we deal with such cases on a personal level (only one person needs
Raul> to let them know how to do better), and not deal with such things
Raul> as a committee.
Umm, no. I think the future is not going to be a mirror of the
past, and the types of messages we get may change. However, this fear
is obviously not shared by you and dwarf.
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.
Raul> That is a quote. Section 6.1 of the constitution, item 3.
I meant, where did you get the idea that I was suggesting a
committee for approving the submission of proposals to the technical
Raul> Here's the text that you wrote which I'm responding to:
Raul> What would teh committee feel about a requirement that either
Raul> the project leader, or a group of developers (not less than 5,
Raul> possibly 10), can submit a *technical* problem, and optionally a
Raul> proposed solution, to be considered by the committee? The committee
Raul> would retain the right to refuse to consider a proposal, of course.
Raul> Apparently, you object to me characterizing "a group of developers"
Raul> as a committee. And, I suppose that means that you meant something
Raul> like a quorum being required.
Yes. (I think I need to work on my communication skill, if
things that I mean to say are not getting through at all).
Raul> However, I still don't see that we can make such a requirement
Raul> without a constitutional ammendment.
Oh. My impression is that the ctte should be avalaible to all
developers, but having a proposer getting a fw other people to sign
off on a proposal would not be too onerous, would perhaps improve the
quality of the proposal, and act as a check for potentially frivolous
requests being sent in the heat of the moment.
But then, rejecting a proposal with ``not enough design''
would accomplish some thing similar, I guess.
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. Mark Harrold
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