[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler

On 09/02/14 at 12:21 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:13:36PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 
> > I question the whole notion of DPL delegation of policy powers to the policy
> > editors.
> Can I suggest you start a GR about if you think the DPL is maing
> decisions he can not make?

The way I understand the current situation is that either:
1) the policy editors decide on technical policy, and the TC acts as
a last resort instance -- however, on this specific set of issues, I
think that the policy editors have expressed that they are happy to
defer the decision to the TC. So the TC decides;
2) the policy editors cannot decide on technical policy -- their roles
are to document the [consensual] technical policies, and organize
discussions so that such consensus can emerge. The TC decides on
controversial technical policy.

So, in both cases, it's up to the TC to decide here.

We should probably re-discuss the policy editors delegation to clarify
the role of this team. However, as long as the TC and the policy editors
do not disagree on who should make a decision on a specific technical
policy, I don't think that such a clarification is extremely urgent.

Also, I think that the starting point of such a discussion should be:
"how do we want to split powers inside Debian on the definition of
technical policy?" and not "let's try to guess what's the spirit of the
Constitution on that, and how we can work around it." We should seek an
efficient model where the policy editors and the TC can work in
cooperation for the benefit of Debian as a whole, and document that
model in an update of the policy editors delegation (and maybe, in an
update of the constitution, if needed).  We should also remember that
the role of Debian's foundation documents is to help Debian achieve its
goals by defining a framework. When that framework prevents processes
that are otherwise consensual, maybe we should question whether it
shouldn't be slightly redefined.


Reply to: