On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 04:29 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > All this replacement in favour of a better person sounds very > nasty, mean, and likely to be highly subjective to me, and most > organizations do not often throw people out while they are still > performing their duties.
Of course it's "subjective." So what? The question is whether good decisions are made, not whether we can always find clear objective criteria for them. Debian has often been hampered by a refusal to make good subjective decisions, because of the hamstringing character of those who insist on deductive proofs before steps can be taken. My question was specifically about whether you would support an amendment that allowed throwing people out when they were *not* doing their duties. Would you? > The creiteria can be more than just voting on issues -- look for > number of emails on threads on a issue raised, number of emails sent to > the bug report, number of "fact finding" or "research" or survey or > report mails in that mix. Quite right: that's why I suggested that if someone has failed to vote or contribute twice, they should be replaceable at the option of the DPL. If someone fails to vote that's clear; if someone fails to contribute (you mention a number of relevant factors) it's harder to quantify and so I suggested any two of DPL, Project Secretary, or Tech Ctte Chair could certify that a member had failed to contribute to a decision. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
