On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 09:31:09AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > I don't know where this came from. > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 01:25:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > He told you. It came from <http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>. > > Are you suggesting that the information didn't come from anywhere prior > to appearing on that page? Are you suggesting the Debian website maintainers made it up out of whole cloth? It is the responsibility of the people on the technical committee to ensure that the website admins have current and correct information. Perhaps you disagree. It amazes me just how little function the technical committee actually has; it apparently has no responibility to anyone for anything at all. > I posted to debian-vote, months ago, that I didn't think that the GR > had a constitutional basis. [It's probably too much to ask that you go > look it up, so: my personal belief is that the social contract is more > than just a document -- it also represents an agreement between us and > our users. The constitution currently leaves the responsibility for > changing agreements up to our leader.] The Constitution says that adjudication of disputes over Constitutional interpretation is up to the Project Secretary, and there was in fact just such a dispute over John's GR. Since the PS didn't toss out John's GR as unconstitutional, we can assume he doesn't interpret it to be so. Mind you, if you had done what the Constitution suggests and stepped in to handle the PS's duties while he was indisposed, *you* could have canned John's GR and made his opponents (and presumably yourself) happier. See? Your own apathy towards your duties as technical committee chairman works against you, as well. > If "the antagonists" can "arrange themselves" without addressing > that issue, well, I guess I think that it's an excellent thing that > they're sick of arguing. I guess you didn't understand what I was getting at. Those who were militantly for John's GR, and those who were against it, had pretty much gotten sick of yelling at each other about it, and everyone appeared moderately content to let the issue go to a vote, after which we'd have people quit the project in disgust, or keep on working (maybe some of both). At any rate, the issue was entirely in the hands of the Project Secretary when the debate died down, and no further debate qua debate could have expedited the issuance of a ballot. It was the PS's ball and he dropped it. > > Did you even bother to read my message about why the proposals should > > be regarded as expired? > > Yep. I think you had an excellent point, there. Then I urge you to bring it to the Project Secretary's attention. > The committee hasn't been acting as a committee, because we haven't seen > the need. We have been acting as individuals. So it is your understanding that the Constitution requires nothing at all of the Technical Committee Chairman, even if the Project Secretary is unable to fulfill his duties? > > Maybe both? After all, this is the committee that can't even see fit > > to report the identities of its chairman or membership accurately on > > the Debian website. > > Eh? Now you're saying that the information on that web page came > from the committee? You're saying it should have come from someplace else? -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws branden@debian.org | will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpEc0fPbkNqo.pgp
Description: PGP signature