[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:46 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
>> is AJ.

> Because, of course, making things personal is definitely what the
> technical committee is all about, and just generally a brilliant
> approach to solving problems.

        And yet,  further down, you respond in kind.[0]

>> AJ says that what is needed is `new blood'.  I suspect that part of
>> what he means is that he wants rid of me.

> I don't think the committee would be worse off without you; and I find
> it fundamentally disturbing that any of the founding members are still
> members ten years later. The same's true of Manoj (though I'm not sure
> if he joined when the committee was formed, or shortly after
> that). Even ftpmaster has changed significantly more than that over
> the same time period, for example.

        This I don't understand.  This seems like a blend of appeal to
 novelty and a personal vendetta; which makes me very uneasy about
 supporting the proposal. Of course, appeal to tradition is equally
 silly; and I am certainly not proposing that.

        When I championed the last injection of fresh blood into the
 ctte,  we also reduced the membership of the ctte; and the criteria we
 selected for removal was  participation, and thus contribution to the
 committee; and all the people thus removed were pinged, and were indeed
 in agreement.

        And oh, yes, I have been on the ctte since it was formed; though
 I was not initially on the draft short list of proposed members.

> I also think you're completely off the wall in many of your opinions,
> including your desire to have Debian ship a different md5sum compared
> to everyone else, to have further discussion about Sven's proposal for
> a libstdc++ udeb, and your latest obsession with taking dpkg back
> over, and I think you set an incredibly bad example in the way you
> deal with conflicts. I don't have much of a problem with that, though,
> because the committee is meant to be a group that makes decisions, and
> it's good to have people with different opinions and approaches in a
> group.

> It would certainly be possible to argue that you're the main problem
> with the committee -- you proposed it while DPL, you've been on it for
> its entire existance, and you chaired it for a good five years by my
> count: at the very least, you've had more of an opportunity to ensure
> it's functional than anyone else in the project, and thus are the
> individual who ought to be held most responsible for its
> dysfunctionality.

 0: This is what I mean.

> But even if you were to not only argue that but buy into it, there's
> still a structural problem that the tech ctte membership isn't
> answerable to anyone else, and the project doesn't have any influence
> over its membership.

        This is the first valid point I have seen in favour of the

> The reason I didn't raise this last year was because the only
> reasonable path to removing members seems to me to be oldest first,
> and I was pretty sure you'd take that personally; given you're
> decision to hijack dpkg over coding style preferences, I find I'm not
> so bothered by what you think anymore.

        Actually, basing removal on term of service seems to be the
 least logical of the replacement strategies;  since it care anught for
 performance, or value of the contribution, but seems to cater to
 novelty for novelties sake.

Law stands mute in the midst of arms. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: