On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 08:16:06PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Kevin Mark <kevin.mark@verizon.net> writes: > > the tech ctte seems to have people use regular email address and > > discusses things in public, will the soc-ctte be different? My > > idea you say is bad because it follows something like the tech-ctte in > > this regard, as I see it, which is the basis for the soc-ctte, so far. > > Is that accurate? > > The issues the ctte discusses are technical and reflect the person's > technical decisions. The issues are mostly "should maintainer A do X > or Y". The issues a social committee would discuss are social and > reflect a person's social skills. The issues would be "should > we take some action on maintainer A for doing X." I find these two > areas very different. YMMV, of course. > > Granted, now that I've thought about it, you could always say that a > public mailing list would be the same thing as a BTS pseudo package. > Is having a repository of people having at one point of their life > poor social skills as defined by the Debian project a good thing? Debian seems to have all of its discussion in the open. These include myriad flamewars and personal insults. Are they not examples of poor social skills and are they not part of the great memory called the internet? My example of an entry would be like this: joe user : you flamed me! peter hacker: oh. I'm sorry, I didn't mean it. joe user : thanks. If that person resolved the bad interactions, this would be reflected in this post. Resolving social issue is a good thing. And the interaction would contained in this report, not on a list that is usually searched and cached like google. HTH, K -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature