Hi, On 06/01/14 at 11:56 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 01:23:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > I'd like to note that the discussion on this delegation was inconclusive > > on a couple of points: > > > > 1) it does not include anything about defining rules for NMU delays. > > > > The last time the NMU "policy" was changed was in 2011. The process used > > back then was: > > - the release team announced its intention to change the policy in > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html > > - #625449 was filed against developers-reference > > - there was some discussion > > - the proposed change made it into developers-reference > > > > I believe that this was a very reasonable way to make such a change, and > > that there is no need to give explicit authority to the release team over > > the definition of the recommended delays for NMUs in developers-reference[1]. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#nmu > > > > Of course, if recommended NMU delays are discussed again in the future, > > I think that the release team's opinion should be heard with great > > attention, given the role of NMUs in achieving quicker bug fixing and, in > > fine, faster releases. > > > > Hi Lucas, > > This is somewhat troubling, as I pointed out in > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dpl-helpers/2013-December/000124.html > > Explicitly again: Please see the last 7 years worth of bits mails, where > the release team have lowered this without advance notice, for BSPs etc. > > As you have chosen to explicitly remove this role of the release team, > without consensus, could you please state who you are now allowing to > change NMU policy? First, I do not think that we have a NMU *policy*. What we have is a set of (non-binding) recommended procedures, including recommended delays, documented in developers-reference. The current content of dev-ref is mostly the result of DEP1[1,2], which I co-drove back in 2008. It was later modified to include the result of #625449[3] (0-day NMU for RC bugs with no activity for more than 7d). [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/developers-reference/pkgs.dbk?r1=5249&r2=5353 [2] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep1.html [3] http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/ddp/manuals/trunk/developers-reference/pkgs.dbk?r1=8702&r2=8902 I think that this part of developers-reference, like any part of dev-ref, can be changed by any DD, following a process similar to the one the release team used in 2011: > - the release team announced its intention to change the policy in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html > - #625449 was filed against developers-reference > - there was some discussion > - the proposed change made it into developers-reference That is, propose a change and seek consensus. Also, I'd like to point out that, in fine, I don't think that the DPL has the power to decide on an NMU *policy*, and thus cannot delegate that power to the release team, because deciding on such policy would be a power of the TC, not the DPL. See Constitution 6.1.1: | The Technical Committee may: | | 1. Decide on any matter of technical policy. | | This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals, | developers' reference materials, example packages and the behaviour | of non-experimental package building tools. (In each case the usual | maintainer of the relevant software or documentation makes decisions | initially, however; see 6.3(5).) - Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature