Re: Conflicts between developers and policy
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Why should you make your package conform?
Raul> Because it's the right thing to do.
If we all did the right thing we would not need a policy or a
constitution, would we now? This is a weak argument.
>> Since the policy document have no more standing than, say, "The
>> flight of the Bumble Bee", all this means is that the tech
>> committee pointed to a set of rules somewhere, entirely at theur
>> whim, and said "YOU! MORTAL! Follow THAT!"
Raul> Since when is "The flight of the Bumble Bee" the right thing to
Since I decided on it. What is to prevent me?
Raul> I think now you're objecting to Ian's recursive explanation of
Raul> what policy is. For a better explanation, consult a good
According to him, policy is a set of technical specifications
and procedures that the developers are expected to use. The
Constituition does not say so, nor the policy itself, all we have so
far is one persons expectations (note: he did not speak as a project
Please point the clause to me that I should use the help of a
a dictionary to elucidate for my feeble intellect.
>> That has been my point. If the Policy documents have no standing,
>> especially in the defining document that awards authority, then the
>> technical committee can bring in any reference they choose fit, not
>> just the policy documents. (Like the MS OS manuals ;-)
Raul> You mean like their entire background of technical expertise?
Raul> Oh, the horror!
What technical expertise? The Chinese emperors also extolled
the virtues of the selection process for the mandarins, until it fell
into rapid decay. I would rather have a set of standards to lean on,
and point to, rather than depend on the supposed technical excellence
of a body that does not yet exist, and whose composition one can not
Raul> People who aren't competent to distinguish between worthwhile
Raul> references and garbage aren't going to be good tech committee
Raul> members just because you've reclassified policy as some kind of
But at least they can do less damage through their
incompetence because we shall always have policy. Also, the policy is
likely to be more open and more stable (it is less likely to be
affected by cabalistic tendencies than the tech committee.
>> This is too much power in the hands of too few. Especially since
>> the developers have no say in who constitutes the board. How
>> answerable are they to the rest of the developers anyway?
Raul> I missed this one myself, when I was reading over the draft
Raul> If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
Raul> remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
Raul> Of course, the developers can provide override decisions for
Raul> both the tech committee and for the leader...
Does that mean the developers can stop the appointmen tech
committee members? Cool. What about delegates and so on?
Raul> But the real thing that will keep us honest is the outside
When does the outside world decice on internal policy matters?
When did the outside world ever make anyone conform to the www
>> I would rather be able to point to the policy documents as a kind
>> of limit to the powers of the technical committee. And have the
>> developers have some say in the shaping of the policy documents.
Raul> Huh? Are we even talking about the same document here?
What do you mean? I have initiated discussions that led to
modification of policy documents, yes.
Raul> What are you thinking?
I want a simple statement that says: Policy is to be
followed, with certain riders.
When you stay on the tracks, ignoring the facts, you can't blame the
wreck on the train. from the song, "You Can't Blame . . "
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com