Maintainership

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

On debian-project I posted a suggestion in respose to Zach in the
thread about maintaintainership.  See below.

Do the TC think a resolution such as that below would pass ?

Supposing such a resolution were passed, would it make a practical
difference to how you approach petitioners and maintainers ?

Ian.


From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
To: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
Cc: debian-project@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers
Message-ID: <22593.38530.975380.276998@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:42:58 +0000

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
> 
> This is the obviously right solution.

Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much
more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes:

 DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS

 OPTION A

 1. Our priority is our users and free software.

 2. Debian maintainership is a position of power and responsibility.
    It is an earned position, which arises from work and leadership.
    Maintainership should continue so long as the good leadership
    continues.

 3. We give advice to the Technical Committee:

 4. The Technical Committee should consider all opinions and options
    based on their merits, not based on the authority of the speaker.

    The opinions of the current maintainer are as relevant as the
    opinions of other contributors, users, and other stakeholders.
    But they are no more relevant.

 5. Specifically, when making any decision with respect to a package,
    the TC should not pay attention to the formal maintainership
    status of the package.

    On the other hand, it is relevant to give more weight to a
    contributor who has a strong record of contributions to the
    package; shows depth and accuracy of knowledge about it; or has
    shown consistently good communication, stewardship and leadership.

 6. Our advice specifically includes decisions on who the maintainer
    should be, under Constitution 6.1(2), or whether to overrule the
    maintainer, under 6.1(4).

 7. The constitutional 3:1 majority is a sufficient safeguard against
    undue interference with the work of individual maintainers.

 OPTION B

 (1-6 as above)

 7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words
    "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".

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.

-- 
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.