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

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:27:35 -0400, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> said: 

> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> So these two don't seem necessarily to indicate that the decisions
>> were wrong, just that they were ignored.  There has indeed been a
>> problem with TC decisions being ignored.

> The TC is the decision-maker of last resort. So if such an issue is
> brought to the TC, a decision is made, and that decision is ignored,
> the TC has in a sense failed. Either it's made a technically bad
> decision, or it's taken on an issue it should never have ruled on
> (since someone else was able to make the actual final decision), or
> it's made a decision that while perhaps good in an ideal world, did
> not survive contact with the real one. All of these are in a sense
> wrong decisions, and I see some of each in the examples I listed.

        Or it was a right decision, and correctly made, and just not
 enforced. The TC is loth to take action that physically enforces its
 decisions; by uploading a package, or NMUing stuff, or the like.

        Perhaps it should stop just  making suggestions, anbd laying
 down the smack down if people don't ask hiow high when it says jump. 

        On the gripping hand, perhaps not.

> One of the problems with having a committee who votes on an issue is
> that often no-one in the committee actually assumes responsibility for
> the issue.

        This does somewhat resonate.  But the experiment where we
 decided to hand over an issue to one member who took ownership of the
 issue did not seem to have resulted in a very different outcome --
 perhaps because we ultimately did come back to a  vote.

> Which is why TC decisions can easily be ignored, and why
> there's not much review of decisions.

        I don;t understand why taking responsibility for decisions
 results in higher reviews. I have taken decisions as secretary, and as
 policy honcho before russ came on board, and I do not recall more of a

> I suspect that such a pool of developers would be much less fun/more
> work to serve on than the current TC, and would probably have a
> naturally higher turnover. I think it would also be more satisfying,
> and might attract valuable people who don't see the current TC as a
> good use of their time.

        For the record, I'd be willing to try this suggestion out on the

We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves. Eric Hoffer
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: