On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 06:36:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > If you ask me to go on, ignoring whatever the committe could have to > say, I'd just ask Christian to move Gnome2 into unstable and the matter > would be done.
If there's no reason not to do this, then why not do it? > This can be done, and I'm tempted to do it (but I can't do it, it's > Christian's decision) but we may as well close the technical committe in > that case. The tech-ctte has been created to resolve such issues, if he > can't do it, it is useless. The committee is about picking between choices which have been adequately discussed elsewhere -- the committee is not about designing detailed proposals to make these choices work. That said, debian developers (including committee members) have every right to draft detailed proposals, where they see the need. If you think this committee should ratify a detailed proposal, perhaps you'd like to write one? But, useless? I don't think that quite captures the idea right: We (the committee) are a safety valve -- a way of relieving pressure when we (as a project) are screwing up. It's a *good* thing when we (the committee) are useless. However, unfortunately, we (the project) can't guarantee that we (the committee) will always remain useless. [When I was the committee chair, I made it a point to personally involve myself in discussions where I was afraid that incorrect handling of the situation would lead to the committee needing to intervene. My goal was to prevent those situations from deteriorating to the point that we'd have to do anything. This year, I've not had enough free time to do much along that line. I didn't need any special authority to do this -- any developer could have done the same -- all it takes is a little focus and time. As long as problems are headed off soon enough, all you need to do is point out potential integration problems -- almost all of us are smart enough to make the right choices, once we recognize the issues.] Anyways... If there is *nobody* opposed to the modified solution 2 (which seems to be the case -- even though I'd have to spend a few hours nailing down the details before I would be comfortable I knew precisely what the "modified solution 2" entails), then why should we need to take any action at all? And, if there is significant opposition to the "modified solution 2", then that dredges up a bunch of other issues where I'm not totally certain I understand what's going on (I'll need to research some apparent contradictions I've heard from at least one individual -- and it could turn into apparent contradictions from than one developer, once I start investigating -- in discussing this issue). And I'm *not* saying who I think has contradicted themselves, because when I do the research it might very well turn out that I just wasn't understanding the person's points. Thanks, -- Raul
