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

Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures


On Saturday 19 April 2008 20:24, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm still not convinced that we need all that bureaucracy. Here is a
> draft amemdment.

> -----
> Draft amendment - Project infrastructure team procedures
> > Debian developers acknowledge the following:
> >
> > * The Debian Project infrastructure is run by people who volunteer their
> >   time and knowledge in a good-faith effort to help the Debian Project.
> > * The practice of existing members of a team having people join in and
> > help, and new people volunteering without a particularly formal
> > procedure, is the original and natural way of changing team membership.
> > * Training of and otherwise working with new team members requires
> >   additional effort from existing team members, so care should be taken
> >   to avoid having too much team effort spent on unnecessary new members
> >   or new members who would not reciprocate the effort.
> > * Infrastructure teams have to be stable, but they don't have to calcify.
> Debian developers resolve the following:
> * Infrastructure teams are encouraged to adapt their sizes to their
> workloads, to ensure that they don't block or slow down the work of other
> Debian contributors.
> * Existing team members who don't sufficiently contribute to the team
>   effort should be removed from the team.
> * When an infrastructure team slows down or blocks the work of other Debian
>   contributors without taking the necessary actions, the Debian Project
> Leader is empowered to add or remove members to/from the team using
> delegations. When possible, this should be done by consulting the team
> first. -----

Not sure if I really needed to quote all this, as this is only a draft, but 
anyway, I second this proposal. Also and even with the recent DPL 
delegations, which seem to have been widely accepted, I think it's a good 
thing to document this with a GR.

Since Lucas has posted this, I was just to busy to read this short proposal 
thoroughly, thats why I havent send this mail earlier. Josips mail today 
prompted me to finally do it :)


Attachment: pgpjJn2w4roQj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: