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

Re: Technical comitee: motion for initial members

john@dhh.gt.org writes (chopped and changed):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Personally, I _want_ to appoint the technical committee, ...
> > But perhaps the developers don't trust me to do this.
> It isn't a matter of trust, it's a matter of involvement.  ...

OK.  How about this ?  I start looking for the members of the
Technical Committee now, and make an announcement before we vote on
the constitution, saying who I plan to appoint.

That way people can still second-guess me if they feel I'm completely
off-base, but there's not an easy route for them to `fiddle' or stand
for election themselves or whatever.  They'd have to propose an
amendment to the motion which introduces the constitution.

> I think that the developers would probably elect whoever you nominated.

I still agree with my earlier comment:
> > I don't think that we should subject the appointment of the Technical
> > Committee to democratic vote.  The most popular people are often not the
> > most technically excellent, and what's required on the tech. ctte is
> > technical excellence.

Making it nominally a democratic vote will make it seem like a
different kind of decision procedure, and may cause people to stand
who are popular but incompetent.  Of course, Debian doesn't have any
such people, and I couldn't comment on who they are anyway, but you
see my point, surely ?

I think that only technically competent people are competent to judge
others' technical competence.  It's not possible to judge someone's
competence beyond a certain point above your own - and I find this is
as true for me in fields I know nothing about as in fields I know much

This leads me to the conclusion that technical decisions are best made
by oligarchies.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: