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

Re: Technical committee resolution

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:43:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:43:47 -0400, Mike O'Connor <stew@vireo.org> said: 
> > I saw multiple people suggesting such limits.  I did NOT see anyone
> > propose a reason for such a limit other than you who seemed to be
> > concluding that the reason for a limit was the speed at which people
> > were performing their job.  I was just proposing an alternate reason
> > to yours.  If the proposers of such limits had stated that they think
> > it would aid in the speed at which things got done, they eluded me.
>         That is not quite right. I have not presumed to know what
>  reasons other people might have had for limits, nor did I propose a
>  rationale for limits; I have merely expressed my opinion about one
>  cause for the deficiencies in the tech ctte's performance. I have
>  suggested that this cause (lack of time pr participation) has an
>  observable metric, and that metric could be used to aid decisions about
>  the composition of the cotte, rather than just  setting some arbitrary
>  limits. 

well you clearly stated that you thought the proposal to limit the
number of hats was silly "Because the number of hats does not seem to be
a good predictor for performance..."  I was just trying to suggest this
is not the only reason that one might want to suggest such a limit.  You
seem to agree that my reason sounds valid, so I guess your previous
reason for thinking it to be a silly proposal is no longer relevant, so
we can drop it...

> > Are you implying that my hypothetical shouldn't be advanced here?
>         Having seen no concrete rationale, I have no idea whether your
>  hypothetical has any value or not. Did I not invite you tpo present any
>  supporting arguments?

You did not.  You invited me to present a well thought out proposal that
I was ready to defend publicly instead of just a hypothetical, which
seemed to make me think that you didn't think I should be advancing any
such hypothetical until I had such a proposal.  Which i don't have.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: