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

Re: Managing Frozen text when the TC Decides Policy

>>>>> "Sean" == Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes:

    Sean> Hello Sam,
    Sean> On Sat 11 May 2019 at 01:24PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:

    >> I agree that it would generally be unfortunate if we had policy
    >> text that could not be changed by the policy process.  I can see
    >> rare situations where it might happen: we might have legal advice
    >> requiring specific text be included in packages under certain
    >> circumstances.  And in such a situation it might well be that
    >> we'd expect the policy editors to go back and check with lawyers
    >> before changing that frozen text.

    Sean> We actually already have this situation with several bits of
    Sean> text that the Policy Editors don't consider ourselves able to
    Sean> edit without ftpmaster approval.  See, for example, #904729
    Sean> and #912581.

These cases look like cases where you have frozen requirements not
frozen text.  That is, it doesn't look like you'd have any trouble
rewording the requirements, but that when you are documenting archive
acceptance criteria, you must be consistent with ftpmaster.

That makes a lot of sense.

    >> I think the policy editors could handle this by deciding amongst
    >> themselves how they want to interact with the TC and then writing
    >> a note to the TC along the following lines adapted based on what
    >> the policy editors think the write answer is:

    Sean> Thank you for taking the time to think about this carefully,
    Sean> but I would like to suggest that we set is aside until and
    Sean> unless we have a concrete situation in which the Policy
    Sean> Editors feel that we can't make a change to the Policy Manual
    Sean> because of a particular T.C. decision.

Well, we have a situation now where a member of our community (Bill) is
uncomfortable with the TC being asked to take on one of the tasks that
our constitution lets the TC take on.
I think that concern is something that we should address now since it
has arisen.

If you as policy editors think that you can reassure Bill and tell him
that you believe you could work with the TC were that situation to come
up, then I think you could adress Bill's concern now without addressing

Right now we have a situation where someone is concerned that one part
of Debian could not work with another.
I'd like to get that cleared up.  If the policy editors are confident
that they can defer things, I think that would be a fine solution.


Reply to: