Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:33:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing > > > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations > > > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. > > > > Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever > > want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is > > not fair? > > Am I being trolled? You're not. > I mean that soc-ctte should either: > 1. do something to support an existing fair situation; > 2. seek replacement of an unfair situation. > > That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null > alias, should not be a regular option. Well, yes. > > Please see Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project > > for my last take on this general stance. > > What bit? "placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel > ideas"? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp > even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context. No, I meant the general stance as in: | | 1. The Social Committee's purpose is to promote constructive and | |agreeable relations between Debian Developers and others involved | |with Debian. | | This should also mention - documenting the social norms and procedures | that are used by developers and others to achieve the same purpose. Since unfair situations don't usually promote constructive or agreeable relations, supporting those situations wouldn't happen. Right? > > > I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden > > > on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. > > > > Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least > > it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote. > > -project is listed as "Miscellaneous Debian" on http://lists.debian.org > while -vote is "Development". If you feel that's wrong, please file a > bug. I think that categorization was meant to say that users can expect to find something interests them on -project, whereas only developers will find -vote interesting; but I see how this can be turned around. In reality both lists are oriented towards develop*ers*, not develop*ment*, because we usually mean packages etc when we refer to development. I'll file a bug. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing > > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations > > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. > > Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever > want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is > not fair? Am I being trolled? I mean that soc-ctte should either: 1. do something to support an existing fair situation; 2. seek replacement of an unfair situation. That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null alias, should not be a regular option. > Please see Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project > for my last take on this general stance. What bit? "placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel ideas"? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context. > > I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden > > on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. > > Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least > it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote. -project is listed as "Miscellaneous Debian" on http://lists.debian.org while -vote is "Development". If you feel that's wrong, please file a bug. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred > > > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". > > > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. > [...] > > > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to > > > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? > [...] > > This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the > > difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :) > > Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference > between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing > situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide. > > There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and > written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some > of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those > will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I > think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in > those cases. > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is not fair? Please see Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on -project for my last take on this general stance. > > But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to > > debian-project... > > I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden > on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred > > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". > > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. [...] > > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to > > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? [...] > This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the > difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :) Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide. There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in those cases. Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. > But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to > debian-project... I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the > > soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement > > here and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should > > decide that we can't really intervene." [...] > > This raises a question. > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. > > However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly > on one side), it shouldn't intervene. > > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? > > As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd > expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do > nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it? This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :) But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to debian-project... -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
