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
about.
This leads me to the conclusion that technical decisions are best made
by oligarchies.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: