Re: Technical committee resolution

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> This, however, I find a really interesting argument.  I'm not sure it
> would actually work, but using the tech-ctte as a final arbitrator of
> Policy decisions and actually using that appeal on a regular basis is
> something that Manoj and I have both talked about, something that has
> constitutional support, and something that may very well work.
> 
> This is something that we could try now without making any changes to the
> tech-ctte, if the tech-ctte is interested.  If we tried it for a while,
> we'd have more data to use to determine whether rotating the membership of
> the tech-ctte would be useful.

I think that would be interesting.

> Have you raised this idea with the tech-ctte?  What do the other members
> think of having review of Policy change proposals be part of the tech-ctte
> job?  How would the mechanics of this work?  (Manoj's Policy change
> proposal has the tech-ctte as an automatic appeal for any rejected Policy
> change, but this sounds more active than that to me.)

I would suggest that as a first step, without needing to change
anything anywhere else, the policy maintainers advise submitters of
rejected changes of their courses of appeal.

So for example if you think the change is a bad idea, you can have a
little form letter that says

   [explanation of why not to replace /etc with a binary `registry']

   For the reasons above, we have decided not to accept your proposed
   policy change.  This is because we think
      [*] it is a bad idea
      [ ] the design is incomplete
      [ ] it requires a practical demonstration
     (indicate one or more)

   We may of course be wrong.  If you disagree with this decision
   and wish to pursue the matter further you should refer the matter
   to the Technical Committee.  Please send them a copy of or a
   reference to this email, along with the reasons why you disagree.

or something.

> I think you're using a hammer to turn a screw.  If there are people out
> there with energy to tackle tech-ctte problems, you can add them right
> now, without needing governance changes.  You only need governance changes
> if the tech-ctte refuses to appoint new people with more time, and I don't
> see the evidence that this has been tried.  Clearly you think the
> tech-ctte needs more energy and help -- why not open a call for volunteers
> and move forward that way?  Or pick a few people who you think would be
> good, get some consensus in the tech-ctte, and try to draft them?

These are all useful suggestions.

Ian.