Dear Russ, Thank you for your reply! On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think I'm currently the only active Policy editor. Not sure if the > other current editors have plans or hopes to become active again. I do not have much experience organising this kind of event. However, assuming the other policy editors don't become active, I'm optimistic that we could have a productive sprint if you were able to be involved in planning the sprint. > If I were going to prioritize the sort of work that could be done in > sprints (a lot of Policy work requires getting project consensus, > which isn't well-suited to sprints because it's hard to determine the > absence of well-founded objections in the context of a sprint), it > would be documenting the major changes in the project that Policy is > entirely silent about. I was under the impression that there were a lot of stalled bugs that were not at the "waiting for consensus" stage. Is this wrong? I was thinking that a goal for the sprint would be getting bugs to the "waiting for consensus" stage. > Off the top of my head, the most pressing: > > - Triggers > - Multiarch > - systemd integration (there's a draft in an external repo) > - FHS 3.0 > > For the first two, having Guillem or someone else deeply involved in dpkg > development on-hand would be hugely helpful since they'll have to review > the resulting document anyway. Makes sense. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature