I agree with most of what you say here, specificly that no process is defined for access to this committee.
It was my understanding that this committee was very much a last resort feature, to be used only when the two sides of an issue were hopelessly deadlocked. Such circumstances should be quite obvious. It seems clear to me that the process "described" in the constitution would require that the two "sides" of the discussion recognize the deadlock and mutually agree to ask for resolution from the committee. I think that one way to avoid any abuse of the committe is to require that both sides of the discussion agree to the "binding arbitration" of the committee. This means that we only get involved when both sides of the discussion are disatisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Thus the committee only becomes involved when there is a true deadlock, and not just when one side or the other is unsatisfied with the outcome of the public debate. I was intrigued by your idea that the committee might refuse to hear a case. As we are the instrument of last resort, and the "final appeal", I'm not sure we want to take a position like that. I believe that requiring both sides to ask for a decission from us is enough protection from the abuses you fear. Is there some issue looming on the horizon that you think we need to plan for? For that matter, was there some reason to keep this to the ctte list? Could we use some public discussion on this? Luck, On 28 Jul 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > Ther5e are issues that are arising from the ongoing move to > FHS compliance that may need resolution through the technical > committee. However, there are no public protocols or procedures to > table a proposal to the committee. > > Personally, I think the tech committee has too much power > contained in too few hands for it to be involved in any situation but > that of the last resort, or for it to act ininvited or on its own > accord. > > I posit that we also need a protocol that would prevent abuse > of this process (there have been fears that once this process is > widely known, then certain people shall tend to submit frivolous > RFC(larifications) whenever their whim is thwarted ;-). > > Under the powers of this committee, the constitution states > that any devreloper or group may refer a decision to the committee, > but does not define any procedures that need be followed. > > What would teh committee feel about a requirement that either > the project leader, or a group of developers (not less than 5, > possibly 10), can submit a *technical* problem, and optionally a > proposed solution, to be considered by the committee? The committee > would retain the right to refuse to consider a proposal, of course. > > manoj > > -- > Good day to deal with people in high places; particularly lonely > stewardesses. > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> > Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E > > > Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
