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

Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:14:39PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > You state the problem yourself - the *current* DPL(s) are doing
> > *something*, but we don't actually know much about it, or if any of it
> > will happen again, or if the next different DPL and his inaction will
> > mark the start of another fifteen years of problems...
> > One could argue that this pair of DPLs will lead by example, and set a
> > standard for all future ones. But has that historically happened, and
> > if so will it repeat itself? I don't know. I don't like not knowing,
> > when there's a reasonably simple option that can fix that.
>         And you think a little GR telling DPL's "go ahead -- you can do it!"
>  is going to make a whit of difference. given the precedent the current
>  DPL is setting?
>         You have far more faith in a GR that reaffirms stuff that DPLs
>  have already done to make a difference about the conduct of future
>  DPL's.

I think that it's going to make a difference, because it will eliminate
the notion that there are grey areas, which has historically obstructed
progress - no leader wanted to order people to do things differently when
it was not clear whether they had both the legal and the moral authority
to intervene in matters where they haven't intervened before.

The next DPL, in say three or four years from now, could easily think
something like - yes, those guys did some interventions back in 2007/2008,
but that was only after a prolongued period of problems, so I don't really
have the right to intervene in our current problems, regardless of how acute
they are, because I need to let a few more years pass.

> > In essence, this is analogous to the real-world issue of people not
> > thinking that some general problem is their problem, and nothing much
> > gets done before someone takes the plunge and does a more
> > revolutionary thing.  Whereas, in the more organized societies, people
> > use the mutually agreed upon (constitutional) processes to create
> > procedures which avoid major problems before they escalate.
>         Had nothing been done, you might have had a point. As such, this
>  is just make work.

You're ignoring the simple fact that it has taken so many years to get this
much done. Does that kind of a lag not indicate that we have a systematic
problem that needs a bit more more systematic action? Such as defining
a tangible consensus on what should and should not be done.

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: