Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I do agree with Ian, however, that the tech-ctte is one of the worst >> examples for limiting hats for a slightly different reason: the >> tech-ctte needs to make decisions for the project that the project can >> then implement. Yes, this has been a weakness already, but one way in >> which that could be addressed is by having *more* tech-ctte members who >> are on core teams so that they can go make the resolution happen. > This is at odds with the "Judicial branch" metaphor and the current > conflict-resolution duties of the ctte. If there is overlap between the > people resolving the conflict and the people introducing or fomenting > it, then I think the structure is doomed from the get-go. True. >> For an entirely theoretical example, if the tech-ctte were to make a >> decision about what software is acceptable to include in the archive >> and Jeorg were on the tech-ctte, I think it would be more, not less, >> likely that the decision would then be implemented. > That would seem to undermine attempts to decentralize power and achieve > proper segregation of duties, in keeping with Manoj's aims. Certainly true. This is a benefit that runs exactly contrary to decentralization of power and segregation of duties. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
