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

Re: New policy draft available at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/

>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl> writes:

 Wichert> What Ian is basically saying (correct me if I'm wrong here)
 Wichert> is that he would like to see someone in charge of policy who
 Wichert> takes a more active role and will pick up those lost
 Wichert> proposals himself. Someone who takes a more active role in
 Wichert> the process and is willing to make a stand if needed. I

        This has not been possible in the past since there was no
 sanction for any such person, or indeed, even this process. Unless
 the DPL is willing to stand up and empower a person or a group, there
 is not constitutional power given to anyone except the tech ctte to
 create new policy.

        Indeed, if you are willing to delegate such authority, I would
 be willing to step up. 

 Wichert> agree that the old process with a single policy czar did not
 Wichert> work, we've proven that. However the current process seems
 Wichert> to have gone too much into the opposite direction, and we
 Wichert> might want to look into finding some middle ground.

        Then we need to discuss exactly what we want this person to do.
 Wichert> What policy needs is someone who is willing to take a more
 Wichert> active role in the process and actively work on policies,

        This does not need a DPL mandate; the current guidelines all
 allow for people to undertake this role. 

        Indeed, the problem seems to be lack of volunteers, and time:
 Anyone developer can take up a policy proposal, and call for
 discussion, or move the process along.

        Unfortunately, few people have stepped up to the plate (Julian
 did a lot a while ago, but he scaled back since)

 Wichert> while still using the BTS-based system to keep everyone
 Wichert> involved.

        The implication here is that you need someone to do most of
 the work, and just keep everyone else in the loop. I think
 that we should stick to the current method of policy changes which
 allows for anyone to initiate discussions, and a small group of
 developers to bring changes forth; what we need is someone with
 authority to step in and steer discussions that are stalled; and
 decide whether a consensus has been reached.

        I still do not think that this person should be able to
 override formal objections from more than one developer (in other
 words, two or more develoerps formally objecting to the policy lead
 should be able to bring the issue before the technical committee). 

 Ever Onward!  Ever Onward! That's the sprit that has brought us
 fame. We're big but bigger we will be, We can't fail for all can see,
 that to serve humanity Has been our aim. Our products now are known
 in every zone. Our reputation sparkles like a gem. We've fought our
 way thru And new fields we're sure to conquer, too For the Ever
 Onward IBM! Ever Onward, from the 1940 IBM Songbook
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: