Re: Technical committee workflow
Here's a first draft of the procedural resolution. Sorry it's so long
but I couldn't see how to make it shorter.
Ian.
PRINCIPLES
1. When a new issue comes in, a single TC member who claims
it becomes primarily responsible for it. We'll call them the
Rapporteur.
2. The Rapporteur discusses the issue with the various parties -
not in the bug report or on the debian-ctte list, but on
debian-devel and/or the appropriate topic-specific list.
In any case the first message should be (cross)posted to -devel.
3. The Rapporteur issues a report which explains their view of:
- relevant facts including any factual disagreements
- the arguments made by all sides, including those
arguments the Rapporteur rejects
- the Rapporteur's conclusions
- decisions about what should happen, who should
do what, and timeframes for compliance
This report should go to the committee list via the bug
report as well as to the lists used for the discussion.
4. If the Rapporteur's decision is accepted and complied with,
no further formal action need be taken. Otherwise the Rapporteur
should formally propose the Report as a TC resolution. 7 days
after that they should call for a vote. If part of the Report's
conclusion is to overrule a developer, it should be phrased like
this:
We overrule the maintainer of gnomovision, if this
resolution achieves the required supermajority.
5. If a TC member disagrees with Rapporteur's decision they
should do so within the 7 day period above, by proposing an
amendment to nominate a replacement Rapporteur - usually,
themselves (see template amendment).
6. The TC will review the Rapporteur's decision. If the
Rapporteur's decision is substantially correct, TC members are
normally expected to uphold it. TC members should not normally
rank Further Discussion above the option which appoints a new
Rapporteur. If no TC member objected and suggested an alternative
Rapporteur, within that period, TC members should normally uphold
the Report.
7. This resolution is a statement of opinion and intent from
the TC; the TC reserves its right (and that of its members) to
change its mind and to waive or modify this process, by explicit
resolution of the TC if felt necessary.
CLAIMING ISSUES
8. To strike a balance between dealing with issues promptly,
and concentrating power in the hands of those who can reply to
email instantly, we maintain a queue. This queue contains an
ordered list of all of the TC members, with those who have never
been Rapporteur jointly at the front. Each time a TC member
becomes Rapporteur they are put to the back of the queue.
9. A TC member may claim an issue only after a delay to give
those members earlier on the queue a chance. The delay is 12 hours
for each TC member strictly ahead of the claiming member in the
queue, starting from the time when the issue arrived at the TC
list. The first claim meeting this restriction is effective.
10. The email which makes a claim should set out
- The time by which the Rapporteur will finalise their
report. This should normally be 14 days. If the Rapporteur
does not report by this deadline then the issue becomes once
more open for claiming by a new Rapporteur. The Rapporteur may
later request an extension, with an explanation of their
reasons, by asking the TC. If no TC member objects then the
extension is effective.
- The new state of the Rapporteur queue.
11. The Chairman may by decree, after consulting with the other
members of the committee, alter the following aspects of
this process
- any durations specified whether suggested or normative
- which mailing list(s) and/or other communication methods are
to be used at which stages
- the process by which items are claimed
TEMPLATES
12. EMAIL CLAIMING A WORK ITEM
From: Delia
To: 12345@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#12345: gnomovision `core dump' menu item is stupid
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:00:01 +0000
I hereby claim this work item.
(I was 4th in the queue behind Alice, Bob and Charlie,
and 48 hours have elapsed.)
I'm about to start the discussion on debian-devel.
I will report within 14 days, ie by the 14th of January.
The queue is now as follows
Alice Bob (joint head of queue)
Charlie
Emma
Ferdinand
Delia
13. INITIAL EMAIL FROM RAPPORTEUR STARTING DISCUSSION
From: Delia
To: debian-devel
Subject: Re: Bug#12345: gnomovision `core dump' menu item is stupid
The Technical Committee has been asked to rule on the dispute
about this bug report. According to the TC internal process, I
have taken on the role of Rapporteur for this work item. This
means I will be asking questions and gathering information and
opinions over the next two weeks.
I will then write a Report summarising the arguments and giving my
conclusions. The Report is advisory. If the parties to the
dispute do not accept the Report I will then bring it before the
full Technical Committee for a formal decision.
So, on to the meat:
....
14. COUNTER-RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE REPORT
From: Emma
To: debian-ctte
Thanks, Delia, for your clear summary of the issues in your
Report. Nevertheless I'm afraid I must disagree with your
conclusions for the reasons explained so clearly in George's
recent message.
I therefore hereby formally propose an amendment to the resolution
approving your report. Delete the entire text and replace with:
1. Thanks to Bob his report; nevertheless, we disagree
2. We appoint Charlie as an alternative Rapporteur
3. Charlie is to prepare an alternative Report
within 7 days
4. After no more than 7 days we will vote once again, in
a single ballot, on Bob's report and any alternative
from Charlie
5. The queue is now as follows
Alice Bob (joint head of queue)
Charlie
Ferdinand
Delia
Emma
--
Ian Jackson, at home. Local/personal: ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk
ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
Problems mailing me ? Send postmaster@chiark the bounce (bypasses the blocks).
Reply to: