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

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:00:39 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
>> > What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently
>> > been taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy
>> > according to their own opinion without any obligation to consult
>> > each other, or the developers as a whole. I'm not willing to have
>> > delegations exist in that way.
>> Can you cite any instance that his has actually happened?

> Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
> delegate on IRC.

        This is a mischaracterization of what was actually said, as
 you have been informed about several times.  Look, I am not going to
 argue with you the merits of your delegations; they are your
 decisions to make. I shall, however, now that you bring this up,
 point to what I consider are lacunae in your rationale.

> You went on to ask for comments on IRC anyway, and you might well
> have done so on the lists anyway, but that's not enough: getting
> review from other developers is a requirement for acting in the name
> of the project, whether that be in documenting the project's
> technical policies or in any other way.

        Dude, if you think all I have done is ask on IRC for review of
 proposed policy changes, then you have selective amnesia: you even
 responded to the threads on -policy and on -devel that I opened for
 the review process.

> 10:23 <aj> Manoj: will you be following the policy change procedure
> you created
>            years ago? (file a bug marked wishlist with the changes
>            you want, get a second on the -policy list, answer any
>            comments, etc)
> 10:23 <Manoj> aj: nope. that is for others to tell me what to do.

        Quite so.  As I have explained already in another mailing list,
 the policy process document is to ensure that the policy delegates do
 not miss out on a proopsal or the discussion around it; it ensures
 that I do not drop anything. Since I am driving thids review, there
 is no need for me to do the BTS dance.

> 10:25 <Manoj> policy delegates can make changes to policy, that is
> their
>               jurosdiction

        Right. The changes have always been up for public review, but
 the final act is the policy delagate taking the changes discussed and
 making changes to the technical policy manual.  People contributing
 on -policy and proposing, modifying, and reviewing proposals do not,
 on their own, have the right to modify technical policy -- that used
 to lie in the realm of policy delegates.

> I'm not willing to let a delegation stand while if it's being used
> as a justification to not talk to other people; even if that's
> happening only hypothetically.

        You do not have to justify your decisions to me, but I think
 it is evident to anyone who reads the orc log that has been floating
 around that I came into that discussion ranting about the release
 policy, and said:
        "where are the etch rc directives url again? I have some time;
         I'll loboitomize policy to follow those  directives exactly."
        "policy is being degraded down to match the rc criteria"

        Note that the stated goal was to make policy match the release
 criteria: and the commentary was more a reflection of my opinion of
 the release policy than anything else. (I should apologize to ABA and
 Steve; on closer inspection, the release policy is quite sane).

        I now realize that this must also have angered you, since the
 release policy has its genesis in something you created. So I
 apologize to you, too, for denigrating something you created.

        I think the rest of the fiasco proceeded from your feeling of
 anger (this is speculation on my part, of course).  I do question the
 judgement of basing you decisions on what was obvious to everyone as
 "jus Manoj blowing off steam, he'll calm down in an hour"; you have
 been around on previous occassions where I have ranted at length on
 IRC (though perhaps not on things you might have been invvolved in

"The hand that rocks the cradle can also cradle a rock." Feminist
saying, circa 1968-1972
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: