[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (chopped and changed): > Ian Jackson writes: > > Personally, I _want_ to appoint the technical committee, ... > > But perhaps the developers don't trust me to do this. > It isn't a matter of trust, it's a matter of involvement. ...
OK. How about this ? I start looking for the members of the Technical Committee now, and make an announcement before we vote on the constitution, saying who I plan to appoint. That way people can still second-guess me if they feel I'm completely off-base, but there's not an easy route for them to `fiddle' or stand for election themselves or whatever. They'd have to propose an amendment to the motion which introduces the constitution. > I think that the developers would probably elect whoever you nominated. I still agree with my earlier comment: > > I don't think that we should subject the appointment of the Technical > > Committee to democratic vote. The most popular people are often not the > > most technically excellent, and what's required on the tech. ctte is > > technical excellence. Making it nominally a democratic vote will make it seem like a different kind of decision procedure, and may cause people to stand who are popular but incompetent. Of course, Debian doesn't have any such people, and I couldn't comment on who they are anyway, but you see my point, surely ? I think that only technically competent people are competent to judge others' technical competence. It's not possible to judge someone's competence beyond a certain point above your own - and I find this is as true for me in fields I know nothing about as in fields I know much about. This leads me to the conclusion that technical decisions are best made by oligarchies. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
