Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:24:25PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that we need all that bureaucracy. Here is a
> draft amemdment. If we vote on both your proposal and this admendment,
> could you tell me why I should rank your proposal higher than the
Apparently nobody's been enticed by the proposal in the last two weeks
enough to second it, so there doesn't appear to be a reason, really ;)
> > Debian developers acknowledge the following:
> > * The Debian Project infrastructure is run by people who volunteer their
> > time and knowledge in a good-faith effort to help the Debian Project.
> > * The practice of existing members of a team having people join in and help,
> > and new people volunteering without a particularly formal procedure, is
> > the original and natural way of changing team membership.
> > * Training of and otherwise working with new team members requires
> > additional effort from existing team members, so care should be taken
> > to avoid having too much team effort spent on unnecessary new members
> > or new members who would not reciprocate the effort.
> > * Infrastructure teams have to be stable, but they don't have to calcify.
> everything stays the same so far.
> Debian developers resolve the following:
> * Infrastructure teams are encouraged to adapt their sizes to their workloads,
> to ensure that they don't block or slow down the work of other Debian
> * Existing team members who don't sufficiently contribute to the team
> effort should be removed from the team.
> * When an infrastructure team slows down or blocks the work of other Debian
> contributors without taking the necessary actions, the Debian Project Leader
> is empowered to add or remove members to/from the team using delegations.
> When possible, this should be done by consulting the team first.
> (suggestions of improvements are welcomed for the draft)
Do you think that this will get a modicum of seconds? If so, do you think
that that will happen primarily because the text is shorter, or primarily
because it it's simple (it straightforwardly legitimizes delegations),
or something else?
Maybe my timing was bad, but no seconds, no objections, and one reply -
that sounds like we have a showstopper problem with motivating people to
do *anything* about this, and I'm thinking that we need to understand
that before we think about more wording :)
Hmm. In the last few weeks, we've seen a few DPL decisions go completely
uncontested. Three people replied positively to Sam's decision on -devel,
and nothing else. Is that indicative enough?
2. That which causes joy or happiness.