Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
>> Umm, how does the tech committee figure in this? I meant to
>> say that say, some one proposes an amendment. After discussion,
>> people are strongly divided, and it shall take 4 people to send this
>> to the general developer body. Where does the Tech committee come in?
Guy> Now I'm confused. I thought we were talking only about technical
Guy> proposals? Either way the rules for who can propose, issue,
Guy> etc. technical and non-technical proposals are already in the
Guy> constitution. Such a four-person rule would be unconstitutional.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. Are you contending
that policy be only changed via a general resolution? I think that is
extraordinarily wasteful of time an d effort, involving as it does
the whole developer community (not just the policy group); and
bringning in the full weight of the parliamentary process into the
policy group.
If this is true, then the policy mailing list has no
meaning. And indeed, I shall be forced to campaign against the
constitution.
Looking at the powers of the tech committee, the constitution says:
______________________________________________________________________
5. No detailed design work.
The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
and policies. Such design work should be carried out by
individuals privately or together and discussed in ordinary
technical policy and design forums.
______________________________________________________________________
This proposal represents individuals designing policy in the
debian-policy mailing list. This is not a general resolution. The 4
developer veto makes the policy amendment a formal General
Resolution.
manoj
--
How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E