Re: Technical committee resolution
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 07:04:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josip Rodin writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
> > 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.
>
> I can see where you're coming from with this, but I'm afraid it won't
> work. DPLs have typically been reluctant to get involved in deciding
> disputes - particularly messy ones that others have failed to tackle.
Well, that's a natural reaction, really, when the leader's mandate is so
broadly defined, yet the first defined power of the DPL is to shed
responsibility. If you want someone to do something, telling them that
they could theoretically do it, and then showing them ways how not to do it
sure sounds like an effective way to get them to avoid doing it.
Having said that, that's probably a good default in general - don't mess
with stuff randomly. But in the few specific places, it would help if
they were encouraged to do stuff.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: