Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures
* Manoj Srivastava (firstname.lastname@example.org) [080502 16:55]:
> Now, I must admit that cronyism or not, the release management
> seems to be working, but at one point so were some of the other teams,
> which have come under criticism of late for being obstructive.
So, this seems to indicate that the way to add new people to the release
team isn't an issue. It however indicates also that there must be a way
how the DPL can change a team in case it isn't working anymore, and e.g.
add new people.
Which is the way it currently is. Of course, any team (including the
teams I'm part of) needs to accept if the DPL wants to change the team.
(Though I could imagine ways where I wouldn't want to stay part of the
team longer than necessary for a handover - that's something else.)
> It boils down to this: Do we want a project governed by a
> constitution, or do we want brilliant, hard workers, with friends in
> the DSA (or other infrastructure teams), gain powers be mere
> proclamation, and then present the DPL with a fait accompli that they
This sounds like a mistake to me: Why isn't it possible that the
constitution is written in a way that supports easy ways of working
together, and supports that teams improve themself, that multiple teams
together define the interface between their teams (think of what
recently happened with britney) etc? AFAIU the constitution it is
written this way, and practice seems to agree with that.
And, things don't get secretly laid out with magic ways, but people
notice who is actually doing lots of work (or just ask on d-d-a for
nominations), and from there it starts. All in the open, more or less
public questions and answers for the prospective candidates, and
somehow, at the end only a few people are left over and they become new
team members. Replacing team managers happens the same way - the old
managers are asked, the possible candidates as well, and in the end, all
people agree and things become effective.
If something doesn't work as it should (or people cannot agree on the
new members, or the old team doesn't think there need to be additions,
etc), it is good that the constitution allows already now that the DPL
steps in and just takes the decision. But it is better if the team
decide themself without the need of an DPL intervention.
> If the project decides that the constitution needs an overhaul,
> or needs to be shelved completely, that would be fine. Should some
> infrastructure folks decide on their own that they can just ignore the
> whole constitutional delegation bit, add their friends on to the teams,
Ah, I think you now should prove where I "decided to add my friends to
the release team". The additions to the release team happened on an
basis of open announcements that we want new people, some Tasks&Skills
for everyone, and then the remaining people became release team members.
> and get upset when the DPL appoints someone else?
Also a point I would like to see data for. If the DPL wants to replace
the release manager, he can of course do so.