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

Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee

On 30 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
>  Dale> I am still a bit confused by all the "mystery" you wrapped around your
>  Dale> request. The way to contact us was so obvious to me that I couldn't decide
>  Dale> what you were "really" asking. I simply see no "big issue" involved with
>  Dale> making a proposal to this committee. If we need to define it better, OK,
>  Dale> but it sort of seems obvious to me that the proceedure should mirror the
>  Dale> proceedure used in the broad context of proposals under the constitution.
>  Dale> You have been making sounds like this is not sufficient. So, what would
>  Dale> suite you?
>         I posit that the reason that we have not been swamped is that
>  this committee has been dormant. I suspect that once it becomes
>  active, that would not be the case. One case was presented on IRC:
>  remembering past instances of bug terrorism and extreme disagreement,
>  there was a scenario that some one could use this as a m,eans of
>  second guessing any decision made else where.

I would posit that the reason we are dormant is that no one has asked yet
for a decission from us.

It seems to me that the more we advertise our existance and the
proceedures that we are designing/working under, the more we encourage
malcontents to try to use the facilities.

>         However, since I obviously am in the minority, I guess one can
>  publish that once can get the ctte into action by merely sending a
>  mail to this list. Hopefully I would never be in the positoin to say
>  "I told you so".
Well, I don't see the problem...multiple requests for our attention need
not be handled in the order in which we recieve them. If someone is trying
to reverse, or pre-reverse, a decission of the group, even if we got
coopted into the argument, there are adequate protections within the
constitution to keep whatever we might decide from overruling the majority

In any case, two points:

1. The ctte needs no advertising or additional public access proceedures.
   These could only hasten the senario you have been suggesting.

2. You obviously had no trouble getting our attention, so I see no major
   impediment to others who need our services.

>         manoj
> -- 
>  X windows: Something you can be ashamed of. 30% more entropy than the
>  leading window system. The first fully modular software
>  disaster. Rome was destroyed in a day. Warn your friends about
>  it. Climbing to new depths.  Sinking to new heights. An accident that
>  couldn't wait to happen. Don't wait for the movie. Never use it after
>  a big meal. Need we say less? Plumbing the depths of human
>  incompetence. It'll make your day. Don't get frustrated without
>  it. Power tools for power losers. A software disaster of Biblical
>  proportions. Never had it.  Never will. The software with no visible
>  means of support. More than just a generation behind.  Hindenburg.
>  Titanic.  Edsel. X windows.

Go Brazil?


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: