On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 06:48:31PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > > On the FTP Team (of which I'm a non-delegated Assistant) it can take > > weeks to get agreement on text to send out on an issue. The email I > > sent relatively recently to d-d-a regarding the team's view on > > listing individual copyright holders in debian/copyright was > > literally months in the making. > You are comparing the workload of the FTP team which has to deal with > many issues a year to workload of imposed by an expulsion process when > has been used only a few times in Debian's history. I trust you see > the obvious problem. > Obvious problem aside, we apparently think it is necessary to insist > the Technical Committee provide similar a justification on the cases > they decide upon each year, yet you are apparently are think asking the > people who expel members to do the same thing is imposing an > unreasonable workload. Is how we deal with each other so unimportant? "We" "insist"? The constitution only defines that the TC has the power to make technical decisions, and the voting process by which those decisions happen. It does not dictate that the TC provide any particular level of detail in their justifications for these decisions, and to the extent that the TC does provide detailed justification, it is because they agree that this is the correct thing to do - *not* because anyone outside the TC "insists" on it. Now, there are some common-sense reasons why the members of the TC *would* want to do this. It's self-defense of their own future time to write decisions in a way that they are less likely to be questioned, and it makes a better precedent when the justification is given, as it allows individual developers to reason more clearly about how the decision does or doesn't apply to future related questions. And I think the DAM will ultimately opt to provide insight into their recent decisions for similar reasons. But that's not because the project per se is formally requiring it. > It probably isn't, because that effort you say is so unreasonable - the > the DAM actually do it. Did see read the their private email to the > person concerned - that would be it. This thing you are focusing on, > the written justification wasn't the change I was asking for as they > mostly do it now. I was asking for something entirely different - > transparency. Should we also require a detailed opinion from the DAM for each person who is admitted to the project, or only for those that were once admitted but who the DAM has subsequently decided to expel? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature