Features Download
From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org>
Subject: Re: Technical committee resolution
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Date: Tuesday 1st April 2008 04:28:24 UTC (over 10 years ago)
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:47:42 -0300, Martín Ferrari

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:46 AM, MJ Ray  wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava  wrote:

>> >  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
>> http://www.debian.org/intro/organization>
 feel it's a good idea.

> I fail to understand why Manoj sees this as such a silly idea, and it

        Because the number of hats does not seem to be a good predictor
 for performance -- at least, not for a low number of hats.  There are
 better objective measure that would ensure hastening of the glacial
 pace and lack of follow through th tech ctte has.

        Deciding things based on number of groups people are members of
 seems an arbitrary criteria, and little better than other
 similar rule I also posted about.

> doesn't look good that he disregards ideas in that way, when he's a
> interested party.

        This is the kind of censoring bullshit that does annoy me,
 though.  By implication this is also insulting, and I have no idea qho
 you are, but you have no right to imply that I would participate in the
 discussion with personal motivation overriding what  is good for the

        Also, Just because I am a member of the ctte does not make me
 less qualified to state that some ideas are really bad.  Last I looked,
 the DPL was not Stalin.

> It was also regarded silly the idea of people leaving the ctte after
> some term...  ideas that to me look entirely reasonable, and common
> practice.

        Term limits? Seems like the project is  better served sloughing
 off the dead wood off the board, not merely axing active members
 because some arbitary time limit has passed/

> I don't know about the tech ctte. but I don't think many people would
> argue that many core teams would benefit greatly with those two rules.

        I have seen very little data supporting that assertion.

No matter how many reporters share a cab, and no matter who pays, each
puts the full fare on his own expense account.  -- Edward P. O'Doyle
Manoj Srivastava  <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[email protected]
CD: 3ms