Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
[...]
> > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
> > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
[...]
> This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the
> difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :)
Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference
between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing
situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide.
There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and
written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some
of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those
will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I
think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in
those cases.
Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing
situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations
where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester.
> But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to
> debian-project...
I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden
on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it.
Regards,
--
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: