Bug#741573: Bug #741573:Process Approach vs Others
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:19:07PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> [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.
I also feel that we should check that the policy change process
has been followed as documented or not. So from reading the
policy bug, it seems some of the Policy Editors think that there
is a consensus but that Bill Allombert doesn't agree that there is
one.
The DPL delegation text has this in it:
| Count seconds and weight objections to proposals, to determine whether
| they have reached sufficient consensus to be included, and accept
| consensual proposals.
The Policy Change Process does not document on how to handle
conflicts between the Policy Editors.
I would expect that each Policy Editor can make those decision,
and that once it's made an other Policy Editor can't just revert
that without following the Policy Change Process.
Kurt
Reply to: