Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)
Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> wrote:
> Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> >> * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who
> >> nominated themselves. The basic requirements are:
> >
> > Why should teams decide on their own membership? I don't think this
> > should be allowed.
>
> What's the alternative? Letting anyone in who wants, even if the
> rest of the team distrusts them?
That's a false dichotomy. There are other models besides open
membership and self-perpetuation. Even if I think conditional open
membership would do the project a lot of good, another obvious model
for debian is to allow both self-perpetuation and appointees by an
oversight group - tech-ctte perhaps?
I think I've spotted another problem with the "second edit" - does it
fail if all members of a team become idle simultaneously? Should
there be a default of accepting a new member if the team doesn't
decide?
Hope that helps,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Reply to: