Re: GR proposal: mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser for all packages, using the "gbp patches unapplied" layout, and maybe also mandating hosted on Salsa

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> writes:

    Bernd> On 7/23/19 7:31 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
    >> 1- Mandating VcsGit and VcsBrowser, meaning we do mandate using
    >> Git for packaging.

    Bernd> why is that a reason for a GR?  its a question for the policy
    Bernd> editors.

So, I agree that a GR would be the wrong approach if we thought that we
could get to a consensus strong enough for the policy editors.

I also agree that the policy editors have the technical authority to use
a different (non-consensus) process and simply change policy.  The
policy editors have chosen not to do that sort of thing for a variety of
reasons.  Personally I think they have judged the needs of the project
well.  I think that the project would generally be unhappy if the policy
editors simply used their best technical judgment to set policy rather
than following a consensus process.

It seems quite clear that the existing policy process would not come to
consensus on any of Thomas's points.
So, if we did want to get to a firm policy, I think a GR would be the
right tool.

I hear that you'd vote against such a GR.
Just because you would vote against doesn't mean the GR is a wrong tool.

Personally I think that aGR mandating Git on Salsa would fail.
I'm trying in a consensus discussion to get to recommendations (rather
than requirements) along the lines that Thomas was asking for.

Thomas could try to take some of those recommendations to requirements
with a GR if he chooses.

For several of these recommendations if I cannot get consensus, I will
call for a GR myself.

--Sam