Re: What is going on here?

[Steve McIntyre <stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Martin Schulze wrote:

>I fear that Debian get's a monarchy and we all have to say "yes, Sir"  or
>quit the project.  In former times there were discussion on important
>things.  This time, I see _very_ important changes where the project
>leader only says that "xyz is done this way, now go on folks". 

Sometimes this is the job of the Project Leader, yes? In a lot of cases
there has been far too much discus^H^H^H^H^H^Hargument and not enough
actual decision making or implementation.

>* I didn't see any discussion on the BoD?
>
>  Bruce said:
>
>  "The four members who have the most votes will be elected to
>  two-year terms"

[snip]

>  This makes sense, but again, two years is a long time!  I don't
>  think that this period is useful.

It seems a reasonable starting point. Nobody had made any other
suggestions if I recall correctly, and the elections need to be organised
and the BoD elected so we can get on with things like the next release. 
Things like this can easily be changed once the BoD is working... 

>  "Developers are those who are currently maintaining at least one
>  package."
[snip]
>  Remember developer != package maintainer.

It's a simplistic view, but can you suggest a better criterion? Are there
really _that_ many developers without packages?

>  "Debian should continue to be run by the developers. The purpose of
>  the board is to provide a stable framework to support election of
>  officers and business functions, and to provide broad direction on
>  policy in response to input from the developers. Officers should
>  make day-to-day policy decisions."
>
>  What is this about?  Hey folks, we even don't know what we want but
>  there will be an election of who get's power do decide major stuff.
>  I cannot believe this.

The key point here is that the officers make _day-to-day_ policy
decisions. These aren't going to be the crucial major decisions that we
currently agonise over, but rather simple, relatively unimportant,
solutions that are more easily made by a small group.

>* The CD Issue
>
>  I didn't see a discussion with the result of a decision.  After some
>  maintainer have objected, Bruce _decided_ something.  Why?  And why
>  in that short time?

The whole thing was just a proposal to start with. Bruce withrew the
proposal after he perceived nothing but flak for the idea. Any problem
with that?

>  Are developer nothing worth but maintaining their packages and be
>  quiet?  If so I'll be the first one quitting the project.  This
>  doesn't help us producing a perfect distribution.

Surely some sense of proportion is called for? If we're trying to produce
a perfect distribution surely we have to have some kind of central
decision-making body otherwise we'll never decide on things and we may as
well give up now. Look at the problems we had with the "X 3.2 in release
1.2" and "WWW server standard" debates. Sure, the developers should all
have a say in policy but at some point we need decisions to be made. If
the BoD (an elected, accountable group) can make these decisions after
some public debate then Debian can only stand to gain. 

All IMHO...

-- 
Steve McIntyre, CURS Secretary, Cambridge, UK.   stevem@chiark.greenend.org.uk
<a href=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~stevem/>My home page</a>
"Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,                 +------------------
"Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..."  |Finger for PGP key


--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com