On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst > examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the tech-ctte > needs to make decisions for the project that the project can then > implement. Yes, this has been a weakness already, but one way in which > that could be addressed is by having *more* tech-ctte members who are on > core teams so that they can go make the resolution happen.
This is at odds with the "Judicial branch" metaphor and the current conflict-resolution duties of the ctte. If there is overlap between the people resolving the conflict and the people introducing or fomenting it, then I think the structure is doomed from the get-go. > For an entirely theoretical example, if the tech-ctte were to make a > decision about what software is acceptable to include in the archive and > Jeorg were on the tech-ctte, I think it would be more, not less, likely > that the decision would then be implemented. That would seem to undermine attempts to decentralize power and achieve proper segregation of duties, in keeping with Manoj's aims. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
