Michael Gilbert <mgilb...@debian.org> writes: > So, I had though these changes originated from the recent python > maintainership conflict, and that was basically confirmed by the bof > discussion. The primary motivation for private discussion stated there > was to be able to preempt potential flamewars (like the python > discussion).
There have been several other (significant) issues besides the Python maintainership conflict where people have contacted the Technical Committee in private. I think you're drawing somewhat unwarranted conclusions. > Flamewars are a kind of social problem, and historically the tech > committee has been very reserved about intervening in those > situations. The goal here is not to intervene in a flamewar; the goal is to be able to get involved *before* there's a flamewar and try to resolve the underlying issue before it escalates into a personality conflict. Please don't confuse this with the separate question of whether the tech-ctte should get more involved in social issues. This is an independent question. The ability to raise an initial question in private is valuable for technical conflicts with a social component, where the person raising the technical conflict is concerned that just opening a bug against tech-ctte will come across as immediate escalation. It can be very useful to get a sanity check of one's reasoning before taking that step, as well as assistance in how to word a proposal to be less confrontational, and that's one of the places where I think this option will be used. > So, anyway, after all of that, I would actually rather see this GR go in > the opposite direction and instead uphold the ideal of full transparency > in all works of the tech committee. I am not naive enough to believe in > this cabal idea, but enforcement of transparency eliminates the ability > for project members to even start jumping at the perception that there > is one. If you're a Debian Developer (I forget off-hand if you are), you could certainly propose that. For the record, I'm strongly opposed, for all the reasons previously stated in this discussion. > Anyway, I think it would be quite disappointing to alter our ideals > simply due to a very small minority of developers exhibiting > counter-productive behavior. I completely disagree that this proposal constitutes anything of the sort. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pq7vhcpd....@windlord.stanford.edu
