On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 01:02:59PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > > I wouldn't be surprised to find out that several tech-ctte members think > > that such a just rule is so important that it should really be carved in > > the Constitution, instead of wanting to have it that way just for the > > sake of formalities. Either way, I wouldn't put any motivation in their > > mouths without asking first. > > This last part is key in summarising how I interpret your reasoning: > > - There is a consensus for the basic principle of tech-ctte membership > rotation. > - We (for some value of we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to > always follow this principle. > - We (FSVO we) do not trust future members of tech-ctte to formalise the > basic principle. > - Therefor we must allow existing tech-ctte members to continue > violating the basic principle so they can enforce it against future > members. I disagree yours is a fair summary of what I wrote. Either way, it is not a fair summary of what I think. Therefore I don't think your conclusion on my alleged mistrust on (any number of) tech-ctte members is warranted. > As you probably understand, you haven't convinced me yet.... but to > avoid making this yet another unneccesary long discussion we should > probably just agree to disagree here. Indeed, let's do that :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature