[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

>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:

 >> 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.

 Ian> Constitution 6.1(5)

 Ian>  5. Offer advice.

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

	I posit then that there is no indication that these are
 anywhere close to the views of the techmnical committee, since there
 has been absolutely no discussion of far less the contents, but even
 the intent of creating such a document on the committee mailing list.

	Can I too start writing up documents and claim that they ar4e
 joint recommendations of the Technical committee? Since we are no
 longer restricted to technical issues, I have a few choice things to
 say about the dcma, the us senate elections, and a local councilman,
 (not to mention Kashmir and Iraq), and I'd love to have the tech
 ctte seal on these pronouncements. 

	The right thing to have done, if you wanted the stamp of the
 committee, was to actually have sounded out the committee to see if
 the members were comfortable witht he intent, and the wording, of
 this documents. As one such member, I am comfortable with perhaps the
 former, but certainly not the latter.

 Ian> Well, no-one but me is doing this.

	And there lies the rub. This is a social problem, and the
 solution must needs be social, not something that no one but you is

 Ian> I've tried talking to Branden and I've found it unproductive.
 Ian> So, what I ought to do at this point is refer it to the project
 Ian> leadership, but the project leader isn't answering his mail.

	So this document's recommended practices are already falling
 flat on their face. Sounds like we need better mechanisms, don't you

 Ian> So I'm going to press ahead.

	Wonderful. I am in a dispute, I can't work it out, so I'll
 just press on ahead and do what I want.  I notice that that is not
 what this document recommends -- so it is do what I say (even though
 it did not work for me), not as I do.

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

	We nee4d to have a decent document, with input from more than
 one person, to present to a GR. I note that you have ignored most of
 the people with concrete concerns that have actually posted here. 

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

	What leadership exactly are you talking about?

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

	I a going to outright reject that these hypothetical lurkers
 have any bearing on a public social document that is supposed to
 govern the behaviour of the project members. A document like this
 needs to be processed in the public arenas; if these groupies
 actually do exists, I suggest they make their voices heard.

	I am tired of the impression that people have that important
 business in the project gets conducted behind closed doors by cigar
 chomping old boys of the cabal. So please stand up and be counted,

 The question is, why are politicians so eager to be president?  What
 is it about the job that makes it worth revealing, on national
 television, that you have the ethical standards of a slime-coated
 piece of industrial waste? Dave Barry, "On Presidential Politics"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: