Re: Technical committee resolution
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28PM +1100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> there's not much that can be done internally to improve things, and since
> it's almost entirely self-appointed and has no oversight whatsoever [...]
> The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their
> term,
I'm thinking this is too radical for its own good. You need to fix the
problem of practically exclusive self-appointing which creates a really
unnecessary aura of immutability. But you don't have to do it by going to
the other extreme allowing the DPL to appoint basically arbitrarily and
in a way that they can theoretically affect decisions right off the bat.
Don't get me wrong - it may not actually be a bad idea, but it won't pass
because it has too many possible subtle twists, and people will rightfully
protest that. Witness this thread, for example :)
Instead, I would suggest to do two things - first, institute a better
process, one that doesn't so much focus on intricate stalemates (like the
present 6.2 does), but one that focuses on how to generally get things done
- such as a mandatory timetable for *everything*, even a very lax one.
And secondly, make the DPL the oversight and backup option, but for
*everything*, so that nothing can fall through the cracks. Since the DPL
represents the developer body, it's simply a just logical fallback.
That kind of a change will not by itself appear to fix any outstanding
problems any time soon. However, in practice it should put pressure on
the committee members so that they make more effort to fix problems
themselves, because they'll want to avoid things going to the DPL,
even if it's a distant possibility.
Which reminds me, I need to go reboot the infrastructure team composition
proposal...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: