Re: Technical committee resolution
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> said:
> > I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we
> > could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person
> > without any serious problems.
>
> We could. We could also choose quite another set of silly
> criteria to limit various and sundry things by. The question is, why?
> Why one? A better criteria is not to limit oneself by arbitrary number
> games, but see where the maximal benefit to the project lies. If one
> person has the time or energy to manage one hundred hats, and do a
> better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project due
> Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...]
I feel that the above personalisation of argument is unhelpful.
I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting
people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further
consideration. What is "this type"? Probably we need to re-sort
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
to decide that, if people feel it's a good idea.
In some of my other groups, people are limited to one privileged role
and I understand it helps to protect the organisations against
conflicts of interest and BusNumber-type damage. I suspect the debian
project is unusual with having so few restrictions, both on which
roles may be combined, and on length of service without review.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: