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

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

On 12/02/2014 06:13 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:

> This is an interesting proposal. But it's a big change, so I think it
> should be thoroughly discussed before I could second it. 

I agree some discussion would be useful, but seems like it's a lot
simpler than all the other noodling with term-limits that has gone on
thus far.  What kind of thorough discussion would you like to have?

It seems like the proposal is simple:

 * Do away with the Technical Committee entirely.

The main questions this raises are:

How would we deal with conflicts that would currently be addressed by
the TC?  Hopefully, the answers would be something like: collaboration
and teamwork, negotiation, mediation, and GRs (in that order).

Do we believe that those resolution mechanisms would be more or less
likely to cause strife within the project (or outside the project) than
would resolution by the current TC mechanism?

I am grateful to the folks who have stood on the TC and have worked to
help adjudicate issues as they've been brought to the committee.  It
seems likely that this work has come at significant personal cost to
those project members.   But it's also possible that they were working
in an environment that served neither them nor the disputants well.
What if we tried to encourage participation and larger project-wide
coordination work in other ways?

I'd be interested in hearing from (current and former) members of the
TC, and from disputants who worked through problems with the TC.  What
do you think about Clint's proposal?

> Also, I'd
> prefer to have it as a separate GR than bundled with zack's GR.

Why?  The goal of Zack's GR seems to be to try to reform things that we
think somehow aren't working well within the TC.  The current proposals
do this by trying to avoid stagnation or incumbency in the TC.  Why
isn't it acceptable to consider abolition of the TC itself as an option?

> * Clint Adams <clint@debian.org>, 2014-12-02, 21:08:
>> Anyone want to sanity-check the section numbering?
> Not me!

me neither :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: