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

Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)

Josip Rodin writes ("Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:11:48PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The first is: have you, as the person driving this process, made sure
> > to bring it to the attention of the current infrastructure teams and
> > ask their opinions ?  Do they basically approve or disapprove ?
> I haven't done any explicit scouting for opinions now. I suppose another
> mail to teams listed in www.d.o/intro/organization couldn't hurt.

I think this is a very important thing to do at an early stage.  You
need to get a feeling whether the most important teams generally
approve of your approach.

> > The second question is: who gets to decide whether the team have
> > `failed to make any additions or removals as described above', and
> > what exactly does this phrase mean ?  Whose opinion is relevant for
> > deciding what the `minimum required additions' are ?
> Well, the DPL. All points of contacts are either the DPL or the developers
> in general (in that order), so these two would be able to respond.
> The DPL can respond by decision and the developers can respond by a GR -
> obviously the former is a much more sane default, I hope we don't have to
> explicate that.

I think that the current wording is unclear, I'm afraid.

Whenever you write a process document like this, it's not sufficient
to say something like `when Bob has been sufficiently annoying, Alice
may kill him'.  For anything which isn't a clear matter of fact, it
must be crystal clear whose decision it is.  For example, `when Carol
considers that Bob has been sufficiently annoying, she may authorise
Alice to kill him'.  Or whatever.

> >    If a team therefore changes its composition, the DPL
> >    cannot act even if the DPL feels that the changes were not `as
> >    described above' or not adequate to meet the described goals.
> You didn't quote that clause fully. It says "if the team fails to make any
> additions or removals as described above". The "as described above" part is
> integral, it's not logical to disconnect it and make it optional, is it?

Well, `as described above' might be taken to refer generally to the
process.  In particular, a team might say that they had made additions
or removals `as described above' and might even feel that they were

If you're going to make this a precondition before some power becomes
operational, you need to more be clear about when it's met.  I think
you might be better off removing some of the motherhood and apple pie
from this document to make room for more `who decides'.

Anyway, having taken your interpretation, your proposal says that the
DPL can always add members to teams.  Your wording obfuscates this.
If this is truly what you mean then why not just say something like
`if the DPL considers it necessary, the DPL may add members to

Note that the DPL is already required by the constitution to act
according to consensus etc.


Reply to: