Le Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:05:56AM +0000, Sam Hartman a écrit : > > Bill, in his role of policy editor said that he believed there was not a > consensus.
Hi Sam, I think that what you wrote does not reflect what happened: - Russ gave me the green light for committing the changes, see <https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2014/02/msg00068.html>. Only Policy Editors can decide that a change will be committed, thus it is my understanding that Russ, as a Policy Editor, judged that there was consensus. - Without consulting with the other Policy Editors, Bill reverted the commit. This solo action was done out of the usual process for seeking consensus before changing the Policy. > A lot of my experience with consensus process is in the IETF. There, if > you're in a position to judge consensus, you have an obligation to help > try and build the consensus when you judge that there is not consensus. > If you're in a position to judge consensus, you have an obligation to > lead the discussion, to focus on areas of disagreement, and to see if > your consensus call is correct. There's an expectation that when you > call a lack of consensus, getting to consensus is going to be a > priority, and you're going to put in significant time to help. > > Should some or all of the above be part of what we expect from policy > editors? I totally share this point of view. (This is why after leading the release of the Policy version 3.9.5.0, seeing that I would not have time to do the same within a year or two, I quitted as a Policy Editor). > On another axis of the discussion, what's the appeals process? The only appeal I would see would be through the DPL, since he appoints and replaces the Policy Editors, who are DPL delegates. Have a nice Sunday, PS: I will be on business trip in Trieste for one week. Charles -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org