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

Re: Technical committee resolution

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> said: 
> > I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we
> > could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person
> > without any serious problems.
>         We could. We could also choose quite another set of silly
>  criteria to limit various and sundry things by. The question is, why?
>  Why  one? A better criteria is not to limit oneself by arbitrary number
>  games, but see where the maximal benefit to the project lies.  If one
>  person has the time or energy to manage one hundred hats, and do a
>  better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project due
>  Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...]

I feel that the above personalisation of argument is unhelpful.

I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting
people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further
consideration.  What is "this type"?  Probably we need to re-sort
to decide that, if people feel it's a good idea.

In some of my other groups, people are limited to one privileged role
and I understand it helps to protect the organisations against
conflicts of interest and BusNumber-type damage.  I suspect the debian
project is unusual with having so few restrictions, both on which
roles may be combined, and on length of service without review.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: