Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > 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.
>
> Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever
> want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is
> not fair?
Am I being trolled? I mean that soc-ctte should either:
1. do something to support an existing fair situation;
2. seek replacement of an unfair situation.
That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null
alias, should not be a regular option.
> Please see Message-ID: <20071009221042.GA3055@keid.carnet.hr> on -project
> for my last take on this general stance.
What bit? "placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel
ideas"? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp
even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context.
> > 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.
>
> Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least
> it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote.
-project is listed as "Miscellaneous Debian" on http://lists.debian.org
while -vote is "Development". If you feel that's wrong, please file a
bug.
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: