[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)"):
> Because this compels the DPL to first verify wheter teams follow these
> rules, and then act only if they don't do so. It doesn't give the DPL
> a carte blanche to add members to teams, and that's intentional.

No, it doesn't _compel_ the DPL to do anything.  Because the DPL can
always claim to have done such a verification.  At best it encourages
the DPL to act in a reasonable way.

I agree that it is good to encourage the DPL to act in a reasonable
way.  But one of the controversies is whether infrastructure teams are
currently, and should be, subject to the authority of the DPL.

When I wrote the constitution I intended them to be, but in practice
that authority hasn't been exercised.  By now, subordinating
infrastructure teams to the DPL is a substantial change.

If that's the change you are proposing, then fine, but you should do
so more clearly.

> Can you suggest a better way to phrase this? Preferably not pseudo-code ;)

I would get rid of a lot of the detailed rules about team management
and leave that more up to the teams.  Something like this, to replace
the second half of your proposal:

 Debian developers resolve the following:

 * Whether a team in Debian constitutes an infrastructure team is
   decided by the Debian Project Leader.
 * Infrastructure teams should publish their own processes and
   guidelines for adding and removing members, which may be detailed
   or not as the team pleases.
 * Teams must enable suitably competent and motivated Developers to
   join and become full members, following only reasonable expenditure
   of time and effort.
 * If in the Leader's view an infrastructure team is failing in
   the duties set out here, the Leader may intervene as follows: the
   Leader should set out a timetable for improvement (for example, for
   addition of new members).  If the timetable is not met, or the
   improvements are unsatisfactory to the Leader, the Leader may then
   add one or more new members to the team.
 * The Leader should limit such interventions to the minimum
   necessary, in the Leader's opinion, to rectify the problems.
 * Following the Leader's decision to add new member(s), the existing
   team shall promptly provide the new member(s) with all of the
   necessary access privileges, documentation, and such other
   assistance as may be needed to fully take on the team's

I think, though, that your approach is fundamentally flawed for two

Firstly because I don't think empowering the Leader in this way is a
conducive to good relations with the teams.

Secondly because in practice past DPL's have been very reluctant to
exercise of powers of this form even when they felt they had them.

I think instead you should create a duty of the DPL to resolve


Reply to: