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

Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Le dimanche, 17 mai 2015, 19.00:27 Sam Hartman a écrit :
> Proposed for your consideration and checked into git for your editing:

Thank you for this draft, it's a very good start.

I've pushed 5 isolated commits that make the draft text consistent in 
numbering, capitalization and names. Here come my (uncommitted) comments 
on the text:

> Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1.5):
> 1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez
> Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project. He
> had been actively committing until his commit access was removed by
> Daniel Hartwig. Manuel and Daniel took over development of Aptitude
> in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin for the
> Aptitude alioth project. There was friction between Manuel and
> Daniel, which eventually resulted in Manuel's commit access being
> revoked by Daniel. Since then, Daniel has become inactive, and did
> not comment on the issue when requested by the Technical Committee.

That reads like a correct description of events as they have been 
presented to us.

> 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
> that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
> development and restore Manuel's commit access. Christian still has
> administrative rights and believes he has the technical power to
> implement his proposal. However he wants review from a broader
> audience before implementing that proposal.


Did you intend to have these two paragraphs part of the actual decision, 
or not?

> Advice (Constitution 6.1.5):
> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
> implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

I'd replace "agrees" with "acknowledges", but beware of my en_CH !

> 2. The committee agrees that restoring Manuel's commit access is a
> good step to move Aptitude development forward. Since there is a
> clear way to accomplish this goal within the existing Aptitude
> project support that approach.

I don't understand this second sentence. Is there some punctuation 

> 3. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to managed the social
> aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
> building a stronger Aptitude development community, and establishing
> policies and procedures that promote a collaborative team. Sometimes
> the skills necessary to grow a community ar different than the skills
> to develop a project. Through this approach we hope the Aptitude
> community will gain both sets of skills.

Although I don't disagree with the paragraph, I'm not overly comfortable 
with formalizing our hopes in a resolution. I'd rather drop the complete 
paragraph from the actual decision, eventually moving it to a non-formal 
part (either pre- or post- decision).

> 4. We thank Manuel for bringing this matter to our attention and
> apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.


As you probably noticed from my comments above, I'd rather have a longer 
"background" part and a small, but straight-to-the-point formal 
resolution text. Opinions?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: