Re: Technical committee resolution
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:22:01 -0300, Martín Ferrari <martin.ferrari@gmail.com> said:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> > 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.
> When people are talking about limiting hats, obviously aren't talking
> only about the ctte.
The proposal was to limit the presence of many-hat-bearers from
serving on the ctte.
> And you're understanding that's only to improve speed. Of all the
> problems of the core teams, speed perhaps is not the worst, surely
> it's not the only one. Concentration of power and not allowing new
> people are more important in my POV.
That would be a project wide issue, and should not be termed
"Technical committee resolution". As for as concentration of powers,
the constitution does address it, to an extent: it limits the overlap
between non-delegate positions. The delegates do not need such a
constitutional limit, since the DPL can always delegate someone else to
the position.
The DPL is also free to not delegate someone who they think has
too many hats; I am not sure why a GR is needed about delegations of an
elected DPL.
>> Deciding things based on number of groups people are members of seems
>> an arbitrary criteria, and little better than other similar rule I
>> also posted about.
> No, it is not arbitrary. Random exclusion, as you posted, is. It is
> not arbitrary saying that you have been given enough power and trust
> with one hat and that you should refrain from getting more of that.
> That is arbitrary or unfair to you?
It is a vote of no confidence, certainly. But this again is
something the DPL controls, no? Everyone not on the ctte, or a DPL, or
a secretary, is a delegate *of the dpl*. The DPL can choose not to
delegate a postion to someone who has too much power.
Or are we saying that DPL's have been ineffective at
controlling delegates, so we should pass a GR about the ctte instead?
>> > doesn't look good that he disregards ideas in that way, when he's a
>> > interested party.
>>
>> This is the kind of censoring bullshit that does annoy me,
> Calling bullshit on something I said is quite aggressive; I did not
> insult you, I just pointed out that your attitude seemed (in my POV)
> inappropriate, can you please calm down?
Not quite. You finding my behaviour inappropriate would not have
bothered me (why would I care?). You were imposing a different standard
on me _because_ I held a position with additional duties. That double
standard is what I would consider censorship, highly deplorable,
disgusting, and worthy of raising a stink about.
> Also I'm not censoring you, I'm just saying that if we are discussing
> something in which you are an interested party (as you would be
> affected by the implementation of such ideas) you should be more
> careful with your words, and avoid calling people bullshitters,
> idiots, etc.
Why? Why should I change my behaviour because I hold such a
position? Because speaking straight might cost me the position?
So I should modify my behaviour, to curry favour, just for the purpose
of retaining my position?
While you, sir, might think that way, and modify your behaviour
to retain a position with additional duties, because you think that
means a position of power, I would find that sort of change in
behaviour sycophantic, fawning, unethical, and below me.
If someone comes up with a bad proposal, I will still call a
spade a spade.
> Maybe I come from a different world, but I usually read
> these kind of reactions as a way of avoid giving up any position of
> power because of purely egotistic reasons, not because it's good for
> the project.
I consider changing my tone and fawning on the audience to
retain my position equally horrendous. And if it comes to not roundly
denouncing a bad idea, forget it.
> Now understand why I say that I think that the discussion
> would be better and you will give a much better image of you if you
> stopped flaming? Yes, you should care about what the rest of the
> project thinks about you, since you have a position of power over the
> rest of the project.
I have absolutely no opinion on what the rest od the project
thinks about me, and I would not change my behaviour to be popular, if
it means that I must let silly idea by, and suffer foolish proposals
gladly.
>> though. By implication this is also insulting, and I have no idea
>> qho you are, but you have no right to imply that I would participate
>> in the discussion with personal motivation overriding what is good
>> for the project.
> I am just somebody who's been involved in the project for a few years,
> that changes what can I express about this?
No. But if I do not know you, you can't possibly know me
well. You have no basis to imply that I would participate in the
discussion with personal motivation, unless you are clairvoyant or
psychic.
> Saying that I "have no right to imply.." is censoring, too. And I'm
You can claim you know what my inner motivations are, sure. I'll
then label you, in public, appropriately, based on the actions you have
taken.
> just implying what I clearly said above: you being a person with many
> hats and your flaming reaction to pretty common rules in the outside
> world makes me (and I think I'd not be the only one) doubt if your
> motivation to reject the idea of restrictions on power seats comes
> from a personal motivation or not. Sorry, I have the *right* to think
> and express that, and since I'd never have the chance to vote (not
> because of voting privileges) for the composition of any of these
> teams, I feel more strongly about all this.
You strongly claim you have doubts?
Or are you saying you are sure I am shooting down the silly
proposals just to retain my seat on the ctte?
> In any case, you are not discussing the ideas but a comment on
> discussion style, you have just amplified this.
When you start accusing people of ulterior motives, all style
has already been lost.
> I guess that giving control of most important part of a project of
> hundreds (or thousands) to a very few set of people, some of them
> having too much power, and that some these people become inactive but
> still don't allow other people to replace them is perfectly fine in
> your POV. I must be watching the wrong channel.
Straw man. Amusing how you take my proposal (to find inactive
members, or less active members, and bring their heads to the block
first), adopt my ideas as your own, and then turn around and castigate
me for being opposed to my own idea.
manoj
--
Today you'll start getting heavy metal radio on your dentures.
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: