On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:37:46 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 06:54:50PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> And, just to make things personal, I submit that one of the problems
>> is AJ.
> Because, of course, making things personal is definitely what the
> technical committee is all about, and just generally a brilliant
> approach to solving problems.
And yet, further down, you respond in kind.[0]
>> AJ says that what is needed is `new blood'. I suspect that part of
>> what he means is that he wants rid of me.
> I don't think the committee would be worse off without you; and I find
> it fundamentally disturbing that any of the founding members are still
> members ten years later. The same's true of Manoj (though I'm not sure
> if he joined when the committee was formed, or shortly after
> that). Even ftpmaster has changed significantly more than that over
> the same time period, for example.
This I don't understand. This seems like a blend of appeal to
novelty and a personal vendetta; which makes me very uneasy about
supporting the proposal. Of course, appeal to tradition is equally
silly; and I am certainly not proposing that.
When I championed the last injection of fresh blood into the
ctte, we also reduced the membership of the ctte; and the criteria we
selected for removal was participation, and thus contribution to the
committee; and all the people thus removed were pinged, and were indeed
in agreement.
And oh, yes, I have been on the ctte since it was formed; though
I was not initially on the draft short list of proposed members.
> I also think you're completely off the wall in many of your opinions,
> including your desire to have Debian ship a different md5sum compared
> to everyone else, to have further discussion about Sven's proposal for
> a libstdc++ udeb, and your latest obsession with taking dpkg back
> over, and I think you set an incredibly bad example in the way you
> deal with conflicts. I don't have much of a problem with that, though,
> because the committee is meant to be a group that makes decisions, and
> it's good to have people with different opinions and approaches in a
> group.
> It would certainly be possible to argue that you're the main problem
> with the committee -- you proposed it while DPL, you've been on it for
> its entire existance, and you chaired it for a good five years by my
> count: at the very least, you've had more of an opportunity to ensure
> it's functional than anyone else in the project, and thus are the
> individual who ought to be held most responsible for its
> dysfunctionality.
0: This is what I mean.
> But even if you were to not only argue that but buy into it, there's
> still a structural problem that the tech ctte membership isn't
> answerable to anyone else, and the project doesn't have any influence
> over its membership.
This is the first valid point I have seen in favour of the
proposal.
> The reason I didn't raise this last year was because the only
> reasonable path to removing members seems to me to be oldest first,
> and I was pretty sure you'd take that personally; given you're
> decision to hijack dpkg over coding style preferences, I find I'm not
> so bothered by what you think anymore.
Actually, basing removal on term of service seems to be the
least logical of the replacement strategies; since it care anught for
performance, or value of the contribution, but seems to cater to
novelty for novelties sake.
manoj
--
Law stands mute in the midst of arms. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <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]
