Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus
>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
Charles> Le Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +0000, Sam Hartman a
Charles> écrit :
>>
>> Bill, in his role of policy editor said that he believed there
>> was not a consensus.
Charles> Hi Sam,
Charles> I think that what you wrote does not reflect what happened:
Charles> - Russ gave me the green light for committing the changes,
Charles> see
Charles> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2014/02/msg00068.html>.
Charles> Only Policy Editors can decide that a change will be
Charles> committed, thus it is my understanding that Russ, as a
Charles> Policy Editor, judged that there was consensus.
I agree with that.
Charles> - Without consulting with the other Policy Editors, Bill
Charles> reverted the commit. This solo action was done out of the
Charles> usual process for seeking consensus before changing the
Charles> Policy.
Well, I'd phrase it as Bill, in his role as policy editor felt that Russ
had misjudged consensus.
My understanding is that the process is silent on this: it neither
permits nor forbids this.
I actually think you want the process to permit policy editors to
disagree with each other in this way.
There's some question about how to handle a disagreement when it arises.
Immediately reverting is an option that tends to maximize frustration,
especially if it is not explicitly called out in the process.
>> A lot of my experience with consensus process is in the IETF.
>> There, if you're in a position to judge consensus, you have an
>> obligation to help try and build the consensus when you judge
>> that there is not consensus. If you're in a position to judge
>> consensus, you have an obligation to lead the discussion, to
>> focus on areas of disagreement, and to see if your consensus call
>> is correct. There's an expectation that when you call a lack of
>> consensus, getting to consensus is going to be a priority, and
>> you're going to put in significant time to help.
>>
>> Should some or all of the above be part of what we expect from
>> policy editors?
Charles> I totally share this point of view. (This is why after
Charles> leading the release of the Policy version 3.9.5.0, seeing
Charles> that I would not have time to do the same within a year or
Charles> two, I quitted as a Policy Editor).
OK.
If there's general agreement on this, it might be a good idea to get
this expectation into the process document and reference that from the
delegation.
Naturally as part of that you'd want to make sure that the policy
editors are comfortable with the responsibility the community is asking
them to take up.
>> On another axis of the discussion, what's the appeals process?
Charles> The only appeal I would see would be through the DPL, since
Charles> he appoints and replaces the Policy Editors, who are DPL
Charles> delegates.
Well, I'll note that's not what you did; you brought the issue to the TC
rather than the DPL.
I'll also note that our constitution explicitly limits the DPL's actions
with regard to a decision of a delegate.
I think the DPL is who you'd bring an issue to if you thought an editor
was consistently not meeting the responsibility of the post. I think
the DPL has no formal power to reverse a specific decision.
Reply to: