Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Peter Palfrader <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> But whether or not that document has any meaning or influence is a
> question for the ftp-masters, release team, and tech-ctte.
> The power of the policy maintainers comes from them being listened to by
> various teams, but those teams can revoke that and listen to somebody
> else or come up with their own documents as and when they see fit.
That feels to me like another good reason to have all of that (apart from
the TC) flow from DPL delegations, including the role of editing Policy.
We've not had much trouble with this in the past, but should we ever
unfortunately run into serious coordination issues between those teams, I
think being plugged into the overall project governance method is useful.
To give a hypothetical example, if there was some sort of major conflict
between how Policy was decided (as distinct from what the policy is) and
how the release team was deciding what was important enough to block the
release, or ftp-master deciding what goes into the archive, that feels
like something the DPL (and hence the project through election) should
have delegatable power to sort out. Not just saying "well, the Policy
team is just maintaining one package in the archive out of many and has no
formal delegated role."
I think it's useful for the project as a whole to have an agreed-upon way
for how we're going to settle most matters of technical policy, since most
of them shouldn't come before the TC at all. I also think it's best to
have that process overseen by the "democratic" side of Debian governance
(the DPL) as opposed to the "technocratic" side of Debian governance (the
TC), because it's really about cooperation, communication, consensus, and
social norms, not about technical decisions.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>