Hello, On Sun 29 Dec 2019 at 11:20am -08, Russ Allbery wrote: > Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> writes: >> On 21-11-2019 13:59, Paul Gevers wrote: > >>> [Disclaimer: the words below are as a member of the release team, but >>> not necessarily those of the team. We haven't discussed this yet.] > >> We have had a discussion, and there were no objections against my vision >> below. > >>> I can envision that if Policy carries such a summary list, our policy >>> would mention the version of Policy it was based on, to make sure that >>> Policy doesn't suddenly change what we as the RT agreed on. > >> So, yes, we would welcome the Policy to maintain a summary list that we >> could reference. We already acknowledge that there will be items in the >> Policy text that we balance differently for RC-ness, so there will be >> exceptions maintained by us. > > Thanks, Paul! This is now on me to compose this list, and I'll let you > know when that's done. Once that's complete, we can do a reconciliation. > I'm inclined to downgrade Policy musts that the release team does not > consider likely to be release-critical in the future, for instance. Let's definitely reconsider those 'must' requirements in response to this work, but let's not commit ourselves to the idea that it's always a bug for the Release Team's conception of an RC bug, and Policy 'must' requirements, to disagree. The Release Team's conception of RC bugs, and the text of Policy, are generated and updated by different processes, for different purposes. I think Debian benefits from that diversity of normative processes, and it would harm that to try too hard to keep the output of the two processes in perfect sync. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature