Re: infrastructure team procedures (third edit)

[Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > * With regard to communication and documentation, infrastructure teams
> >   should try to work under the guidelines laid out in
> >   the Debian Developer's Reference.
> 
> What about dropping this, and renaming the GR to "Project infrastructure
> team membership procedures" ? This seems out of place.

Actually, notice Kevin Mark's reply before yours - he comments how the team
could apply its own wack rules in deciding on whether someone is latent or
not, and we want to prevent that. If we advise in the Developer's Reference
that important team work, including the reviews of member activity, should
be shown to the developers, this rule will serve as a moral brake (sp?)
against bad decisions, because everyone will be able to see if e.g. a MIA
person was not declared latent, and such things.

I don't disagree entirely with the general opposition to bureaucracy - I
also worry that if we add even more rules for external intervention, that
this will encourage external intervention even when it is not necessary,
or just cause a fear of such intervention when it is not necessary. Whereas,
the basics of supervision might just get most if not all teams in a much
better shape, thereby accomplishing the goal.

Maybe just add another sentence saying that the DPL can require the team
to reconsider decisions on which members are latent.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.