Hi, On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 12:55:46PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > And hey, when it comes down to it, this is just a proposal. My > *primary* goal is to give the tech committee something else to > consider if Manoj *does* send his proposal to them! :-) > > I think that with the number of seconds I've recieved (thanks guys!), > this proposal is now too strong to ignore, even if it doesn't make it > through the debates here. Which is really what I wanted. Formally > object if you must -- I don't think it'll win you any friends, but it > won't stop this proposal from filling *my* goals for it! :-)
I am seeing a serious problem here. What bothers me is your "this is just a proposal". A proposal should always be serious. Keep in mind that a proposal can actually become policy, and determine the direction of the distribution. That you consider your proposal primary as an alternative to be considered by a committee that only steps in if the policy group fails is also something that worries me a lot. The main intention of a proposal should be to provide a workable solution that ultimatively (after a discussion period) has support by the whole policy group. If people start filing proposals to achieve something else (and I am not going to second guess anybodies opinion, your statement above is clear enough in this context), we are doomed. Furthermore, you should not identify yourself with the proposal. The seconders did second your proposal. But it seems now their second is abused for the promotion of *your* goals whatever they may be. This tells me two things: First, that you are not standing behind your proposal as a solution for our distribution. Second, the rules Manoj made up for the policy group fail to work completely when people start to pay more attention to them than to the proposals themselves (see how you don't care at all about people probably objecting to your proposal). I am mildly disappointed, but I think this is part of our learning process. The next time a topic gets out of hand such as this one, people will hopefully realize this sooner and start to take a step back and think about what's happening here. Thanks, Marcus PS: Chris, please don't take this personally. You're not the only one to whom my critique is targetted. I do not exclude myself from the critique either. My formal objection to Manojs proposal for example was exactly the same playing with the rules I am talking about above. -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
