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

Re: retiring should maybe be retiring and not kicking out

On 10/4/17, Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> it occured to me that maybe retiring should indeed be that, DDs could
>> become non-uploading DDs as a result from those WAT runs too. If they
>> respond and state so. (So removal from the project is still an option
>> too, maybe still the default, maybe not even that.) And this would
>> indeed be something new in Debian's culture.
> I take it that the status of non-uploading DD then lasts in perpetuity,
> regardless of contributions.  So involvement in Debian at one point in
> the past gets you the right to vote on the project's decisions for the
> rest of your life.
> I think that this would be wrong.  All of our decision-making processes
> and conventions are based around the idea that those doing the work get
> to decide how it's done.  Your proposal would undermine this: those not
> doing the work on the project would have an unwarranted say in GRs and
> leader votes.
>> It also occurred to me that this whole discussion should be on
>> -project, so please reply there. or maybe some other list? anyhow,
>> anybody is free to reply to this mail in public.

Sean's thought process triggered something for me. When you're
speaking of something like voting rights, one aspect is that... it's
harder to make good, particularly *informed* decisions about a topic
if you're not following it by regular immersion. It's about being in
touch with something as "volatile" as how just about everything tech
related *appears* to be these days.

1) That's not saying that people who aren't speaking up and/or who
aren't dropping a patch or three every so often aren't still fully
immersed in Debian.

2) That's not saying that someone cannot still make good decisions if
they're not directly involved in any given something.

What it *is* saying is: The thought triggered by Sean's words is that
some people can stay on top of a topic's evolution to that topic's
positive benefit even while they are 97.865% distracted elsewhere.
Others cannot. It's particularly important when you're speaking of
something like tech that seems to change nearly by the nanosecond in
reaction to every single perceivable factor in its realm.... so steady
cognitive immersion in the topic *is* a factor.

I hope at least part of what I'm thinking is coming out... there... somehow. :)

Cindy :)
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

Reply to: