Bug#797533: New CTTE members
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#797533: New CTTE members"):
> 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.
Here is this reformatted.
Let me consider two scenarios.
In each case I will consider:
a. Current process
b. Current escalation path if TC members (TCMs) disagree
c. My proposal
d. Proposed Escalation path
Scenario 1. Misdirected bug report not even understanding TC
processes or purpose.
>
Some TCM TCM who thinks Some TCM
takes it upon issue worthwhile closes bug
themselves to reopens bug
close bug.
zspam
>
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
point:
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
petitioner].
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.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: