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

Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft with me

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: why Ian Jackson won't discuss the "disputes" document draft  with me"):
> 	Incidentally, my concerns have not been addressed, as
>  dismissed, in typical high handed fashion: for example:
>   a) I objected to the  supercilious language used in the document;
>      and the response was to say such language came with the
>      territory.. I strongly disagree; one can write guidelines of
>      conduct, and rules of discourse and etiquette without talking
>      down to the reader; examples of this abound

If you'd like to suggest alternative phrasings, or a whole alternative
document, please go ahead.

>   b) I objected to document being written apparently with the
>      ratification of the *technical* committee, despite this not
>      being a technical issue; and that too was dismissed with ``it is
>      important to do so''; despite no other member of the committee
>      ever having expressed any desire to expand the role of the
>      committee beyond the initial charter.

Constitution 6.1(5)

 5. Offer advice.

    The Technical Committee may make formal announcements about its
    views on any matter.  ((Individual members may of course make
    informal statements about their views and about the likely views
    of the committee.))

> 	However, despite these concerns, I do think a document like
>  this would be good for the project; but not as it is written, and not
>  necessarily dictated from on high.

Well, no-one but me is doing this.  I've tried talking to Branden and
I've found it unproductive.  So, what I ought to do at this point is
refer it to the project leadership, but the project leader isn't
answering his mail.

So I'm going to press ahead.  If you want to do it some different way,
go ahead.  In particular, if you think this ought to be a GR then go
and write one up and see if you can get your sponsors to agree, and we
can end up having all the developers vote on every clause.

Personally I think that deciding process questions (like whether a bug
should be open or not under some circumstances) by voting is a very
bad idea.  That's what we have the leadership for.

I'm going to digress here somewhat on the `lurkers support me in
email' question:

As I said earlier the private mail I've received has convinced me that
I do have support for what I'm trying to do.  I don't expect my
opponents (or indeed anyone else) to necessarily believe me, but it
does mean that to me arguments of the form `see how Branden and Manoj
dislike your ideas, you must be on your own' are unconvincing.

If there are people out there apart from Branden and Manoj who
disagree with me about anything to do with this document (or indeed
about anything at all in Debian!), I'd like to encourage them to mail
me about it.  I promise to do my best to reply constructively.

If I get the impression that I don't have the support I currently
think I have you can be sure I won't press ahead, if only because
getting trounced in a vote would leave me with egg on my face.

Likewise, I'd like to encourage anyone who agrees with me and wants me
to press on, and who hasn't already told me so, to mail me too.  I'd
appreciate the additional moral support.


Reply to: