Re: Social Committee proposal
On 1/25/07, Lars Wirzenius <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On to, 2007-01-25 at 19:11 +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> As far as appointment, we could try all the same for soc-ctte.
> Except two things:
> * keeping votes secret - maybe they should not be secret.
> * soc-ctte members should serve two years or more.
Hmm. There might be a problem requiring people to commit to working on
something for Debian for at least two years. It's a bit commitment, and
might scare off otherwise worthy people. (Not quite sure it would scare
off me, right now.)
DPL is committed to work as a volunteer for a one year term and is
free to enter on VAC as much as he wants. What's the new problem such
a committee would introduce? None.
> Maybe the limit should be a third of the election quorum, or
> sqrt(number-of-devels)/2? Currently that would be 16 people. I think that's
> a good sample of people, and a workable audience for a mailing list (of
> soc-ctte). Even if we expand twice in size, that's still just 23 people
> (i.e. the ctte would not grow twice as large).
The bigger a committee is, the harder it is for it to get anything done,
in general. However, as long as the soc-ctte doesn't need all of its
members to be active for some particular decision, then it shouldn't be
hampered by people being on vacation, or having their ADSL moved, or
I agree, we don't need a big club, we need a small team that works. We
really need real world examples how the committee could handle past
issues though. I'm not awake enough to came up with examples.
Despite the above two quibbles, I'm in favor of the soc-ctte idea. I'm
sure there's lots of details to work out, but those are just details.
The most difficult thing in programming is to be simple and
The most difficult thing in Debian are changes, i heard that even some
kind of uploads were blocked due to the fear of change. :-P I'm sure
for a external viewer we look like a bunch of technical skilled