On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When people are talking about limiting hats, obviously aren't talking > > only about the ctte. > > The proposal was to limit the presence of many-hat-bearers from > serving on the ctte. Ok, I was thinking and speaking about limiting hats in a context of doing it project-wise, not only to the ctte. Sorry for the confusion. > > And you're understanding that's only to improve speed. Of all the > > problems of the core teams, speed perhaps is not the worst, surely > > it's not the only one. Concentration of power and not allowing new > > people are more important in my POV. > > That would be a project wide issue, and should not be termed > "Technical committee resolution". As for as concentration of powers, > the constitution does address it, to an extent: it limits the overlap > between non-delegate positions. The delegates do not need such a Agreed, but that limitation is restricted to very few posts (ctte chairman, dpl, secretary). > constitutional limit, since the DPL can always delegate someone else to > the position. I'm not so sure if the DPL with its very limited powers could stand doing that change. Of course, I see this as a current problem in the balance of power. > The DPL is also free to not delegate someone who they think has > too many hats; I am not sure why a GR is needed about delegations of an > elected DPL. A constitutional change that restricts the hat allocation maybe would be more effective. > > No, it is not arbitrary. Random exclusion, as you posted, is. It is > > not arbitrary saying that you have been given enough power and trust > > with one hat and that you should refrain from getting more of that. > > That is arbitrary or unfair to you? > > It is a vote of no confidence, certainly. But this again is I don't think so. It's a way of protecting the project as a whole. > something the DPL controls, no? Everyone not on the ctte, or a DPL, or > a secretary, is a delegate *of the dpl*. The DPL can choose not to > delegate a postion to someone who has too much power. >From what I could gather there are still several key roles which are not delegated officially. > Not quite. You finding my behaviour inappropriate would not have > bothered me (why would I care?). You were imposing a different standard > on me _because_ I held a position with additional duties. That double > standard is what I would consider censorship, highly deplorable, > disgusting, and worthy of raising a stink about. OK, please forgive me if you found that insulting. I don't think it's a double standard, but I think that there are additional responsibilities that come with power. > Why? Why should I change my behaviour because I hold such a > position? Because speaking straight might cost me the position? Not at all, all I asked was to change the tone. > If someone comes up with a bad proposal, I will still call a > spade a spade. OK, it's fine. > Or are you saying you are sure I am shooting down the silly > proposals just to retain my seat on the ctte? No, I'm not sure. I really hope that it's not the case. > When you start accusing people of ulterior motives, all style > has already been lost. I really don't want to continue this. I was pointing that in my POV your tone in this discussion should be less condescending and aggressive, call it a double standard if you like. If you want to keep that style and make people raise eyebrows, that's fine with me. I don't care about this. > > I guess that giving control of most important part of a project of > > hundreds (or thousands) to a very few set of people, some of them > > having too much power, and that some these people become inactive but > > still don't allow other people to replace them is perfectly fine in > > your POV. I must be watching the wrong channel. > Straw man. Amusing how you take my proposal (to find inactive > members, or less active members, and bring their heads to the block > first), adopt my ideas as your own, and then turn around and castigate > me for being opposed to my own idea. Do you realise that I was talking about "many core teams" (sic) and not about the ctte (and that was what you dismissed)? -- Martín Ferrari