Re: Question to all candidates
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:41:35PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> The current Technical Committee is inactive; in the past two years they
> have only made two rulings:
>
> * 2004-06-24 Bug #254598: amd64 is a fine name for that architecture.
> * 2004-06-05 Bug #164591, Bug #164889: md5sum </dev/null should
> produce the bare md5sum value.
>
> The md5sum ruling was a bug submitted, referred and decided by the
> Technical Committee chairman. In effect, he used his power in such a
> manner to expect that any bug he files will lead to a tech-ctte
> decision.
What I find striking is the way in which the conflict resolution
process initially failed. Again Debian's social dampening and
corrective features were not in place. It is by the way a GOOD THING
to not just step back and watch the spectacle but to get involved in a
de-escalating way. Not just the DPL should do that. If a conflict blew
up all the way to the DPL allready it is rather hard to find common
ground and calm things down again. A person close to either of the
involved parties, enjoying his/her trust, mediating privately so no
one involved would have "lost face" would have done wonders. This
falls again into the "Loving Relationships" category that we need to
work on together.
> Do you believe that the tech-ctte should be relatively inactive? Or do
> you believe that an inactive Technical Committee is a bad thing?
I personally would welcome a more active Technical Committee, which
would even get involved pro-actively in technical decisions. Note that
the constitution seems to suggest that its role should be rather
passive, though. It is intended as a conflict resolution entity which
is invoked when desired, not one that initiates actions itself.
> If the latter, do you propose (as they would be your delegates) to make
> any changes to the current make-up of the committee.
I think we should look around and see if we can find models which work
better then what we have today and see if we like it. An example to
check out might be
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/processes/techboard
which has a much more active role by design. Note that Ubuntu's
legislative makeup is somewhat different, though, and has other
features[1] and solutions can't be applied as is.
[1] Mark is both the owner of Canonical and member of the tech board
and pushed "python in essential" with his full weight.
Reply to: