Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#741573: #741573: Menu Policy and Consensus"):
> In March of 2014, Charles Plessy asked the Debian Technical Committee to
> review one of the policy editors decisions to revert changes to how
> policy talks about the Debian Menu and MIME support. See
> http://bugs.debian.org/741573 for the TC process and
> https://bugs.debian.org/707851. for the process within debian-policy.
Hi.
I am concerned at the direction this conversation has gone in.
As you will know, I'm not really in favour of the TC dealing with this
issue by primarily looking at whether the policy process was followed.
There are two problems with that approach:
1. The TC - not the policy process, not the policy editors, and not
the consensus on debian-policy - has the ultimate responsibility to
set technical policy. (Constitution 6.1(1))
So in the TC the question of whether the policy process was or was not
followed does not dispose of the question of what the policy text
should actually be.
It would therefore be quite wrong for the TC to confine itself to
discussions of whether the policy process was followed. More so,
whether the policy process was followed is of no bearing when we afre
considering the technical and social merits of the competing options.
The TC should be looking at the merits of the competing options.
2. Discussions about whether someone did or did not follow a
documented process are often acrimonious. Such conversations should
be avoided if they are not necessary for the decision at hand.
If there is a problem with people not being able to work together, or
a breakdown of trust, that is a matter for the DPL who appoints the
policy team.[1]
I am also once again disturbed to read messages from Bill's opponents
where they declare a system that Bill mostly maintains, and wants to
keep maintaining, "dead" and want to "kill" it.
[1] Personally I am doubtful that the DPL has the authority to appoint
the policy maintainers. I think the policy maintainers are the
maintainers of a package and therefore the authority lies with the TC
under 6.1(2).
Bear in mind that debian-policy is not the only package containing
policy documents covered by 6.1(1). Programming-language-specific
policies are often in the language packages; even parts of core policy
are sometimes in dpkg-dev or whereever. However:
(a) it appears that my view on this point is a minority and not shared
in particular by the policy team, the Secretary, the DPL, or the TC,
so it is rather academic.
(b) if it /is/ the TC's responsibility, the question of who should be
the primary maintainer(s) of debian-policy is a separate question to
what the document should contain in this disputed case.
It would be perfectly consistent (for example) for the TC to conclude
that Alice was right on the substantive question (ie that policy ought
to say what Alice[2] wants it to say), but conclude that Alice's
interactions and ways of pursuing this legitimate objective were
sufficiently disruptive that trust has been lost and it would be
better for Alice to stop down as policy editor.
Ian.
[2] Alice chosen because we already have Bill (B) and Charles (C)...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
