On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:28:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari <martin.ferrari@gmail.com> said: > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote: > >> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote: > > >> > 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 > >> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization> to decide that, if people > >> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization> feel it's a good idea. > > > I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it > > Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor > for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats. There are > better objective measure that would ensure hastening of the glacial > pace and lack of follow through th tech ctte has. > It seems to me however that there might be other valid reasons to limit the number of important hats one wears other than what effect it might have on ones performance. As examples I think that it would be reasonable for people to think that having the same person that is deciding which packages can be allowed into debian also be a person that decides what pepole can become new members might be too much power for one person. Or if you have one person in charge of the debian policy, in charge of conducting all votes and also serving on the team making technical deicistions it might be too much power. Regardless of the speed at which people in these kinds of positions may or may not be performing their jobs. IANADDyet, stew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature