Several members of the TC met after breakfast to discuss planning tomorrow's BOF; discussions diverged into general TC issues. Present: Didier Raboud Andreas Barth Philip Hands Sam Hartman Tollef Fog Heen Keith Packard Tomorrow, we want to focus on giving people time to comment. Didier will send slides to the list for comment. Focus on what is the TC--constitutional role, involvement for dispute resolution, discussion of mediation. Discussion of open issues. Prompt open discussion of how to get new members, what we're looking for. action: Didier to send BOF slides to list. ---------------------------------------- We then discussed ways in which the TC could be improved. Sam expressed frustration that internal processes make it difficult to get work done; frustration when email goes into a void. Philip talked about how it's very common to have 30 minutes of time. If you can make a concrete step forward in that time, it's good. If you can't, then you may have lost state and context by the time you get back. We discussed when votes are needed and when action like Phil's closing of the cross-tool-chain bug is appropriate. There was a reasonably refined consensus of those present that votes aren't needed when actions can be undone easily and don't involve exercise of constitutional power like overriding a maintainer. Keith discussed similarity to the UI design consideration that having easy ways to undo actions is better than a required confirmation step. We believe that making it clear in such actions that when a vote isn't taken/people are guessing at consensus, the issue can be reopened. Keith pointed out that's true of all bugs. Several thought it was explicitly important to point out in these cases. There was consensus that we want to be sensitive to requests from TC members and from involved outside parties requesting a vote in a particular case. We also discussed email handling. It sounds like we'd like to try and read email within a week, and get reasonably fast turn around time for comments. As time progresses, the bar for objections should be raised--for example, by two weeks the bar for raising an objection should be significantly higher. Members discussed frustration when objections have been raised late in the process (or after the process) in the past. we discussed that there is value in a community this small of sending messages of the form "I read that; makes sense," rather than just objections. There didn't seem to be a consensus on media. Some members discussed IRC +1s, others pointed out that IRC was unreliable. There was some concern that replies to email might clutter bugs and lists, but people seemed to believe that was acceptable. There was consensus in favor of such agreement being in public rather than on the private list. ---------------------------------------- The committee discussed menu system policy. Part of the TC decision was implemented in the policy NMU. However, another part has not yet been implemented. Didier expressed frustration with the process. There was agreement of those present that if we have a patch implementing the rest of the decision, we should be able to find a way forward. Andreas said that the policy process has stalled and there is a BOF later in the week to discuss. He said that as a policy maintainer that if he had confidence a patch represented the TC decision, he would feel comfortable committing that patch. action: Didier to figure out the state of the patch proposing to implement the rest of the TC decision. action: Didier and Andreas to figure out a process for moving forward. ---------------------------------------- Didier noted that he's been approached by the DPL. The DPL would like to produce a Debian Roadmap and believes the TC may have some role in that process. We started discussions of whether the TC might have a role, and limitations of a road map. There was agreement that we'd like to see a road map that facilitates work rather than a road map that discourages developers from working on things. The project should be what the DDs as a whole want; if the roap map goes against that, it will be problematic. ---------------------------------------- Please send any comments/additions/corrections to the list. I will propose that we approve these minutes at our next IRC meeting, as well as including an agenda slot for any additional discussion of topics from the breakfast meeting, particularly any concerns from those who were not there.
Attachment:
pgpIQb0HSIPOP.pgp
Description: PGP signature