Re: Procedure for submitting requests for clarification to the committee
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
Dale> I would posit that the reason we are dormant is that no one has
Dale> asked yet for a decission from us.
Dale> It seems to me that the more we advertise our existance and the
Dale> proceedures that we are designing/working under, the more we
Dale> encourage malcontents to try to use the facilities.
Yes, but ... we provide no benefit to the project if we are a
cabalistic secret ;-). It is one thing to say the ctte has done
nothing cause noone asked us to do anything, and quite another to try
and sink into obscurity by delibrate inaction.
Dale> Well, I don't see the problem...multiple requests for our
Dale> attention need not be handled in the order in which we recieve
Dale> them. If someone is trying to reverse, or pre-reverse, a
Dale> decission of the group, even if we got coopted into the
Dale> argument, there are adequate protections within the
Dale> constitution to keep whatever we might decide from overruling
Dale> the majority opinion.
Dale> In any case, two points:
Dale> 1. The ctte needs no advertising or additional public access
Dale> proceedures. These could only hasten the senario you have
Dale> been suggesting.
I am not happy with this not swamped because we are outa
sight, outa mind hypothesis. It may be true, but this is not
something I would like us to perpetuate.
Dale> 2. You obviously had no trouble getting our attention, so I see no major
Dale> impediment to others who need our services.
I should hope not, but I am a member. I was thinking more
about developers less fortunate than I in knowing about this august
Zero Defects, n.: The result of shutting down a production line.
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