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

Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation

On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 22:37:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too
> > bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the
> > policy editors.  I would like to see the policy editors assess
> > proposals not only for consensus and support, but also to consider
> > proposals on their actual merit.  Support (in the form of seconds) and
> > consensus can be a very helpful guide to the merit of a proposal, and
> > seeking consensus and second opinions is a very helpful way to avoid
> > making mistakes, but IMO it is the merit of the proposal that should
> > matter.

> I think that the main problem is not the excess of neutrality of the Policy
> editors, but the lack of involvement from the Developers as a whole.  For
> example, I am still amazed that despite we are expected to be hundreds, only
> one Developer managed to second the documentation of the Dpkg triggers
> (#582109), despite it does not introduce changes to the current practice
> (therefore, the challenge is only to check the accuracy; there is no arbitrary
> decision to take).

I've got that on my TODO list for a while, but I've increasingly found
it difficult to motivate myself to help with the policy process, while
the tech-ctte seems to be enacting itself as some kind of Technical
Leadership Board trying to set project directions, with its members
reassigning issues themselves to fast-track them; and while decisions for
global project stuff are no longer decided by consensus, but by force.

Obviously someone else has decided they can do the work.

> This said, if the participation does not increase, it would make sense for the
> Policy editors to relax the current process.

If the policy process was to turn into some kind of policy-ctte, then
I'd see no reason for me to participate in it anymore, at all.


Reply to: