[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> 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   <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: