Bug#741573: Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

[moving back to the bug, because we're starting to discuss the issue
rather than a TC communications matter.]


>>>>> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
    Bdale> I hear you, I just don't have any idea what to do differently
    Bdale> on this specific issue in response to knowing how you feel
    Bdale> about it.

I made a specific proposal in #741573.  
I'd be a lot happier if you'd say "No, I think we've already reached
agreement that the policy team didn't have consensus., so we don't need to
evaluate whether the process was followed."
I wouldn't agree with that, but sometimes people disagree with you.  I'm
OK with that outcome.

If we've already agreed that the policy team didn't have consensus,  my
preference would be to ask the policy community whether they want us to
take up the issue, rather than just asserting a decision from on high.
That is, we communicate to them that we believe that they didn't have
consensus rather than just jumping to a conclusion.
I don't think we need to vote for that if we have internal rough
consensus, although I'd be fine voting on that if we wish to do so.

However:

    Bdale> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
    Bdale> I really think the only difference here might be in how much
    Bdale> of the process to date we've each been involved with.  When
    Bdale> this first hit the TC, I recall discussion about whether
    Bdale> policy process had run its course or not and my belief was
    Bdale> that we had consensus after input from Russ that in fact
    Bdale> policy process had failed here and it was appropriate for the
    Bdale> TC to intervene.  I would have to go do more digging and
    Bdale> reading to substantiate that assertion than I have time for
    Bdale> this afternoon, but that's the position I *thought* we agreed
    Bdale> we were in.

I've been reading this bug since the beginning even though I was not on
the TC.
I recall things differently.
Charles referred his question.
Ian jumped immediately to the technical discussion.
I wrote to Ian and the bug noting that he was jumping to the technical
discussion without considering the question Charles brought to the TC.
Ian wrote back  saying that it was inappropriate for the TC to consider
the question of whether the policy team had a consensus.
My perception is that everyone else ignored Charles and I and continued
on with the technical discussion.

Somewhere along that discussion a couple of TC members (I think you may
have been one) pointed out that going through the bug and determining
whether the policy team had consensus would be huge work.

So, if anything  the consensus of the TC prior to the resignations was
that it was not important to consider the question of whether the policy
team followed their process.

However a few things have happened since then:

* There has been a membership change in the TC.

* There's been a bunch of discussion within the TC and broader in the
  project that we might want to do a better job of working with folks.

* The policy team updated its process.  I don't know how extensive the
  update is, but it's my opinion that under the current process it's
  fairly easy to determine whether the policy team has consensus.
I proposed how to do so on this bug.
It may have been easy to do under the old process; I haven't researched
  that.

--Sam