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

Bug#797533: New CTTE members

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>     Ian> I.e. that an incoming issue should, at least if the petitioner
>     Ian> requests, be subject to a quick vote on whether to preserve the
>     Ian> status quo (perhaps by overruling to at least temporarily
>     Ian> revert a recent maintainer decision).
> I'd agree with that if you replace submitter with k TC members.
> I.E. my objection is to having submitters create work for the TC when no
> one on the TC agrees the work is valuable.

I agree that it is not desirable for a petitioner to unconditionally
create substantial work for the TC.  Perhaps we are talking at
cross-purposes still, because I don't think what I am suggesting would
do that.

Let me consider two scenarios:

  Current process   Escalation path    My proposal   Escalation
                    if TC members
                    (TCMs) disagree

1. Misdirected bug report not even understanding TC processes or

  Some TCM          TCM who thinks     Some TCM      TCM who
  takes it upon     issue worthwhile   closes bug    thinks issue
  themselves to     reopens bug                      worthwhile
  close bug.                                         reopens bug,
                                                     interim vote

   Discussion: Proposal does not generate extra work unless TC
   not united in thinking but is totally meritless.

2. Meritless substantive complaint (ie not misdirected).

  Usually,          n/a                First TCM     TCM who wants
  discussion                           proposes      overrule can
  and delay                            immediate     add option to
                                 preliminary vote,   ballot (if
                                 perhaps without     within whatever
                                 overrule option;    discussion period)
                                 TC probably         or propose new
                                 chooses (c)         vote.  TCMs who
                                                 think complaint has
                                                 some merit vote FD.

   Discussion: This proposal actually saves work by providing a
   low-work path to dismissing an issue without extensive discussion
   anc consensus-building.

Note that even currently AFAICT there is no-one who feels able to
simply close a non-misdirected non-spam bug against the TC.  And
arguably that is right.

That does mean that existing well-formed but meritless petitions
require a formal TC vote to dispose of them.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about what I am proposing.  Let me
flesh it out.  Imagine this is on the TC wiki page:

   Initial consideration and interim relief

   Normally, the TC will quickly conduct a preliminary vote on an
   incoming issue.  This vote is aimed at (a) if the TC feels it
   appropriate, preserving the status quo while a fuller discussion
   takes place; and conversely (b) rapidly disposing of a petition
   which TC feels lacks merit.

   If you are submitting an issue for consideration by the TC, and
   want the TC to help preserve the status quo (perhaps by temporarily
   reversing a very recent maintainer decision, you should explicitly
   say that this is what you want.

   Normal process:

   On receiving an incoming issue, the first member of the TC to deal
   with it, will (usually) immediately, make preliminary formal
   resolution proposals, and announce a desire for a quick vote.

   This will be usually done by editing and sending the following
   email template.  The TCM using the template should feel free to
   make whatever edits, including substantive edits or changes to
   timescales etc., seem appropriate.  The template is a starting

     Thank you for bringing this matter to the Technical Committee.

     As part of our process, we usually vote very quickly to see
     whether wish to act to preserve the status quo, and, conversely,
     also to see if we feel that a complaint is worth disucssing.

     In accordance with our usual practice I therefore hereby propose
     the following, alternative, formal resolutions:

      TOQ. Temporarily Overrule to Preserve the Status Quo

         We have not been able, in the time available, to fully
         understand the arguments on both sides.  However, we feel it
         is important to preserve the status quo, which existed on
         date D [not more than 2 weeks before the complaint, unless
         therre are good reasons otherwise].

         [ Edit as applicable: ]

         We therefore overrule the maintainer of P:

         The change made in version X, as discussed in bug #B message
         M [url] should be reverted immediately.  No other similar
         change should be made, unless by agreement with Z [the

         This decision automatically expires after 3 months, unless
         confirmed or extended by a new resolution of the TC.

         We hope that the interested parties will use this time to
         come to an amicable settlement, and to put their respective
         cases on the technical questions to the TC.

         The maintainer is encouraged to implement this decision.
         Otherwise, the petitioner, or another interested party, may
         NMU to DELAYED/3 at any time within the next week.  [ If
         applicable: ] The release managers are requested to grant a
         freeze exception, on the grounds that this is reverting a
         last-minute change.

         [ If the TCM dealing with this thinks that this option is so
         clearly inappropriate that no other TCM would support it, and
         no suitable text has been provided by the submitter, the TCM
         drafting this email need not do the work to draft such an
         option. ]

         [ Likewise this option should be omitted if it is
         inapplicable.  In that case the drafting TCM should consider
         whether another interim remedy is applicable. ]

      NFA. Dispose of complaint with No Further Action

         We respect the right of the submitter to complain to the TC.
         However, in this case, we feel that there is not a problem
         which warrants further investigation by the TC.

         We nevertheless encourage interested parties (and especially
         maintainers, and others in authority in the project) to
         continue to listen and take account of a range of the views.

     On the ballot will also be:

      FD. Further discussion

     We should start a vote on this 24h from now, or as soon after
     that as possible.  If the result of the vote is A or FD, the TC
     will then move on to discussion of the merits, in as much detail
     as necessary.


Reply to: