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

Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:

    >> 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.

    Didier> That reads like a correct description of events as they have
    Didier> 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.

    Didier> Ditto.

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

Note that nothing in this resolution is formal at all.
We provide background and some advice to the aptitude process.
Only things that are part of the decision are things that are agreed by
the technical committee.
Yes, I believe it's important that we get a summary of our rationale and
background as something that  the TC agrees to, so yes, I believe that
should be part of the decision.

If we had a part of this resolution that had any force--that was a
statement of policy, a resolution of conflicting juristictions,
overiding a maintainer, deciding a matter delegated to us, I'd prefer to
keep the part of the text with actual force short.

    >> 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.

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

To me agrees is more active, more supportive.
However I don't care at all about this.

    >> 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.
s:support:we support:
I'll go make that change.

    Didier> I don't understand this second sentence. Is there some
    Didier> punctuation hiccup?

    >> 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.

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

Again, I'm hoping that the TC as a whole will support this so I want it
 to be part of the resolution.

Reply to: