On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:31PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with how > members of the Technical Committee are appointed, because the current > way seems too conservative.
Well, it's not really me as a person which is at issue here. It's my technical decisions. Anyways, rereading what you've said, it sounds to me as if your own priorities have been the most significant obstacle you've had for fixing what you see as the problem you see the committee having. One thing I've found, AS a committee member, is that my own voice, acting independent of the committee, can be more effective at resolving committee problems than waiting for the problems to snowball into something large enough that the committee has to deal with. That doesn't precisely map onto the area you're dealing with, but there is some similarity. If you win this election, or if you have the time before the election is complete, that's something to keep in mind. More generally, the committee is designed to have a lot of potential fluidity, but a fairly narrow scope. It's also designed to be outside the realm of "political influence" -- you've already got GRs (which can override the committee or re-architect the committee) for that. It's more of a safety valve than a part of the normal flow of Debian. If you think the committee should be different -- even if the only difference is more active members -- you should propose that to the committee. It's not a foregone conclusion that what you propose will be adopted, but the chances are a lot higher if you propose something than if you propose nothing. Re-architecting the committee is also a possibility, but if you don't have the time to talk to the committee, re-architecting it seems a bit silly. Thanks, -- Raul
