Le vendredi, 2 décembre 2016, 15.42:58 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much
> more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes:
>
> DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS
As a general comment, I am in discomfort with GR proposals which have too much
preamble and context as part of the decision. Specifically…
> OPTION A
>
> 1. Our priority is our users and free software.
>
> 2. Debian maintainership is a position of power and responsibility.
> It is an earned position, which arises from work and leadership.
> Maintainership should continue so long as the good leadership
> continues.
These two points should be in an argumentary in favour of the actual GR, and
not in the GR text. Having the body of developers "emit" that kind of wording
(not that I disagree with it…) opens the door to later interpretations, debate
about wording, etc. It's uneeded for a GR to re-state that our priority is our
users and free software. We have it a foundation document, and re-stating it
out of the blue is doing more harm than good, IMHO.
> 3. We give advice to the Technical Committee:
Giving "wildcard advice" about maintainership, as output of a discussion
triggered by "I think the TC will not decide my way", _before_ the TC is just
about to take a decision about maintainership, would (as Phil eloquently put
it) imply that the project is not trusting the TC and its members to exercise
the powers and duties as defined in the constitution.
Would that GR pass, I would most probably resign from the TC.
That said… the TC's constitutional mandate _is_ up for discussion, it always
was, and should always be. It's entirely fine to discuss how the project wants
to distribute its powers and duties internally. But if one wants to address
how maintainership is handled, emitting a no-op GR giving advice to the TC
members is the wrong hammer for that nail, I think.
> 4. The Technical Committee should consider all opinions and options
> based on their merits, not based on the authority of the speaker.
This wording assumes that the TC currently isn't (same goes for further
articles.
> OPTION B
>
> (1-6 as above)
>
> 7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words
> "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".
A GR doing that (amending the constitution to lower the TC majority needed
when overruling a developer), and only that, would be a strong message from
the project upon the importance it gives to maintainership and developers'
decisions. I'm not decided whether I like that specific idea or not, but I
certainly feel that such a GR would be much less paternalizing to the TC and
its members than any flavour of your Option A.
--
Cheers,
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.