Hi Jonathan, First, many thanks for your proposal. This is a longstanding issue that definitely needs addressing. At the risk of nitpicking, I still have concerns about your proposal (expressed below). The first of my concerns is that I'm not really sure that you are entitled to make such a proposal: we _do_ have procedures in place for new membership categories proposal and we _do_ have delegates to make such proposals. Since when can random developers propose discussion topics not within their delegated area? (Especially on debian-project@l.d.o!) I really think that the first decision of the Bureaucrat Comitte should then be a Condorcet vote on a "Public Blame of Jonathan Wilthsire" ballot, to avoid future repetitions of such intents. Le dimanche, 1 avril 2012 12.45:01, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > > Debian Bureaucrats are full members of Debian but do not have upload > rights. They can, however, petition the appropriate persons to ensure that > any upload is denied if the requisite paperwork is not in place, for > example if an Intent to Package has not been filed with a suitable notice > period, package description, copyright information and so on. This rises my second concern about this proposal: what justifies denying the Bureaucrat hat to existing Debian Developers? I think that this would severely limit the pool of potential Debian Bureaucrats. Can't you think of existing Debian Developers that would be entitled the "Debian Bureaucrat" membership hat right now? My personal list of possible candidates has several names on it and also includes my name. So, given that the procedures in place at the time this message is sent permit it, I am hereby candidating to be a Debian Bureaucrat. > A key role of the Debian Bureaucrat is to ensure that all views are taken > into consideration during discussion on mailing lists. It should be > stressed that this is not a discretionary role (the Bureaucrat does not > try to reach a consensus or put forward his own proposals to resolve the > dispute) but instead refers such matters to the Bureaucrat Committee. The > Committee will in this case set up a sub-committee to examine the issue, > taking all views into consideration, in a manner which is consistent with > the British Royal Commission. It is envisaged that the sub-committee will > not be in a position to report its findings to the Developers until the > discussion has become boring, irrelevant and abandoned anyway. In that case, the sub-committee should probably delegate the responsibility for evaluating the boring'ness, irrelevant'ness and abandoned'ness of the discussion to another Comittee; for example the Technical Committee as it seems to have some expertise in that domain. > Debian Bureaucrats must pass through the New Members process as for any > other Member, but they should not be accepted until every 'i' is dotted > and 't' crossed on their application, in preparation for the diligent work > ahead. Similarly it may seem beneficial for them to undertake NM more than > once, but as this is a judgement call and not fixed procedure it should be > decided by the Front Desk and not another Bureaucrat. For existing Debian Developers, I propose that those candidating for the Bureaucrat status should act as AMs on their own NM process (which would be restarted for that purpose), to have them identify and correct all their past erratas. > Finally it should be stressed that on no account may a Debian Bureaucrat > undertake work to simplify any procedure, paperwork or system. Such action > would be wholly against the spirit of the job. Fully agreed! Many thanks again for this proposal Jonathan! Cheers, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.