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

Re: draft alternative proposal: fix problem at the root

>>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> writes:

    Matthias> Hi, Matthew@bendel.debian.org:
    >> I think the TC is a useful last resort where other ways of
    >> resolving technical disagreements have failed. Perhaps we should
    >> consider having a non-binding mediation group for developers to
    >> go to before invoking the TC?

    Matthias> I'm more in favor of the TC _being_ that mediation group.

    Matthias> Rationale: Whoever mediates needs to read up on the
    Matthias> technical issue anyway, so deferring the actual decision
    Matthias> to some other body (if mediation fails) is a waste of time
    Matthias> and effort.

    Matthias> I don't see any advantage in separating these roles.

I see significant advantages in having the roles be the same.

You really don't want a bunch of people running around whose primary job
is to go make decisions overruling people who have done hard work.
Sometimes that is necessary.  Sometimes some tough love in the form of
"If you don't participate in the discussion and help us understand your
issue, we'll be unable to adequately consider your point of view," is
very helpful to get things moving.
However, you don't want a group of people whose primary way of working
is to make decisions about other people's projects without doing a lot
of talking to those other people.

Instead, I think that if a group of people are mostly spending their
time working on mediation, they will be in a much better position to
understand the impact of decisions in the few cases where they need to
make a binding decision rather than acting as mediators.

Yes, getting the TC to be a group that thinks mostly about mediation
first will take some real work.  I sat in on yesterday's TC meeting
because I was curious to get a better handle on how the TC works.
I think that it would take some significant changes and buy-in from the
current and future members of the TC to bring that about, but I also
think it's something we as a project should consider seriously.

Reply to: