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

Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:07:05 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net> said: 

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am of the camp that believe that the only power people have in any
>> capacity in Debian flows from the constitution; which means either
>> the powers listed for developers, or as delegates of the DPL.  Recent
>> delegation activity seems to bear this out.

> That's the problem - it's supported by recent activity, but not by the
> previous ten or so years.

        Maybe it is just me, but using a GR to tell previous DPL's what
 they could ahve done seems like a waste of time.  We know now DPL's can
 and have added people to ftp/dam teams, and now we will have a GR
 telliong DPL's that they can do what a DPL has done already, with a
 whole lot of little rules for rules lawyers to haggle over.

> You state the problem yourself - the *current* DPL(s) are doing
> *something*, but we don't actually know much about it, or if any of it
> will happen again, or if the next different DPL and his inaction will
> mark the start of another fifteen years of problems...

> One could argue that this pair of DPLs will lead by example, and set a
> standard for all future ones. But has that historically happened, and
> if so will it repeat itself? I don't know. I don't like not knowing,
> when there's a reasonably simple option that can fix that.

        And you think a little GR telling DPL's "go ahead -- you can do it!"
 is going to make a whit of difference. given the precedent the current
 DPL is setting?

        You have far more faith in a GR that reaffirms stuff that DPLs
 have already done to make a difference about the conduct of future

> This view that GR's are a problem in itself and that we shouldn't do
> them is indicative of the whole situation - nobody thinks that
> calcified teams are a problem so major that they need fixing with a
> big ol' GR, so the status quo can freely persist, for years at a time.

        Strawman. The calcified teams have been added to, and even more
 is being worked on, and a "Yes, we can"  GR seems like a redundant,
 time wasting exercise of bureaucratic zeal to me.

> In essence, this is analogous to the real-world issue of people not
> thinking that some general problem is their problem, and nothing much
> gets done before someone takes the plunge and does a more
> revolutionary thing.  Whereas, in the more organized societies, people
> use the mutually agreed upon (constitutional) processes to create
> procedures which avoid major problems before they escalate.

        Had nothing been done, you might have had a point. As such, this
 is just make work.

        However, feel free to go ahead with make-work; we do need to
 fill up the vote page with more than just DPL votes, and I'll happily
 run GR's. 

        What's next, a GR determining the favourite color of the Debian

Everything is possible.  Pass the word. Rita Mae Brown, "Six of One"
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: