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

Re: IS hartmans a good fit for the TC

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'd like to see people come to the TC earlier in the process. I hope
> that asking for help, especially from the TC will be viewed as a way
> to improve communication not as an escalation in an already poisoned
> process.

I think this is something that we're all in agreement about; to some
degree, this is a consequence of the TC being historically slow to act,
and fear of the TC making decisions which neither of the parties desire.

> I hope that we'll work with people to see other sides of an issue and
> to help them make decisions more than we work as an appeal board.
> In handling the menu system issue, there was a question of how to
> interact with the policy process and the claim that a rough consensus
> had emerged in the policy team. The TC seemed to value technical
> correctness more than the process.
> If true, perhaps that should be fixed. Regardless of whether that's
> true, the TC can consider what came before and can choose to value the
> effort of everyone involved in the policy process.

The current state of this issue is that Keith is working with the policy
folks to find a consensus agreement. I agree that the TC has been too
slow to operate on this issue, but consensus is the direction that we're
headed in now. But as is often the case, lack of free time is holding
things up.

> However, there's a big difference between actively not not acting and
> dropping an item through inaction.

I don't mind if we decide to not exercise our powers in resolving a
particular issue, but I believe TC should vote to resolve every issue
which has been brought before it if the submitter believes that there is
still an issue.

In the most recent systemd resolution, I felt (and still feel) that
doing what we did put the issue to rest, so everyone could move on.

> Forcing everything to have a formal resolution (even if that is a
> formal resolution to take no action) really gets in the way of helping
> people out, building consensus, fostering communication.

Maybe there is some middle ground here. I personally don't think there's
an issue with people informally bringing an issue to the TC to mediate
or assist, or members of the TC going out and helping, and resolving
those issues without a formal resolution.

I think in those cases, whoever brought the issue forth can just say
that it's been resolved, and we can continue on.

It's probably my personal bias speaking[1], but in some of these cases,
I'd still like to use the TC power to make statements to publicly
congratulate and recognize the efforts of Debian contributors who
resolve these issues through communication and consensus building, and
specifically point out the consensus which they obtained.

Admittedly, some of my desire to do that is to help show that the TC
also fosters this kind of problem solving.

> To me this is more about determining whether we want similar enough
> things to work well together.

I think we all are interested in seeing Debian succeed, and working
together to make the best Free Software distribution we can.

We may disagree on how best to do that, but the very fact that you're
willing to discuss, disagree, and still work together is why I still
support you joining the TC.

1: I may have an inordinate fondness for rigid procedure.
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Sometimes I wish I could take back all my mistakes
but then I think
what if my mother could take back hers?
 -- a softer world #498

Reply to: