Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Josip Rodin writes ("infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> Take four, just added the rule explicitly handling the case where DPL and
> team disagree on which members are latent.

I'm sorry to come into this at this late stage but I have a couple of
questions.

The first is: have you, as the person driving this process, made sure
to bring it to the attention of the current infrastructure teams and
ask their opinions ?  Do they basically approve or disapprove ?


> * If the team fails to make any additions or removals as described above,
>   the Debian Project Leader is allowed to do the minimum required additions
>   instead. The Leader decides the validity of candidates according to
>   the procedure described above, adds new team members and communicates
>   that decision to the developer body. Such new team members can also be
>   rescinded by the Debian Project Leader, unless they get confirmed
>   as valid and accepted into the team by team consensus.

The second question is: who gets to decide whether the team have
`failed to make any additions or removals as described above', and
what exactly does this phrase mean ?  Whose opinion is relevant for
deciding what the `minimum required additions' are ?

This is the crucial question of who has the ultimate authority and it
remains unclear here.  So I'm afraid that the proposed GR has a great
deal of verbiage but fails to actually answer the key question.


I think you have two possible sensible answers:

 * A team has not `failed to make any additions or removals' if it has
   changed its composition at all (over some relevant period - what
   period?).  If a team therefore changes its composition, the DPL
   cannot act even if the DPL feels that the changes were not `as
   described above' or not adequate to meet the described goals.

 * The DPL decides whether the condition is met.  Therefore if the DPL
   feels that the team's efforts are insufficient or inappropriate,
   the DPL can intervene.

But with the wording at present the result is this:

 * The situation is unclear and the first time we try to use this
   we'll have to have another GR about it.


Ian.