Le dimanche, 17 mai 2015, 19.00:27 Sam Hartman a écrit : > Proposed for your consideration and checked into git for your editing:
Thank you for this draft, it's a very good start. I've pushed 5 isolated commits that make the draft text consistent in numbering, capitalization and names. Here come my (uncommitted) comments on the text: > Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1.5): > > 1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez > Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project. He > had been actively committing until his commit access was removed by > Daniel Hartwig. Manuel and Daniel took over development of Aptitude > in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin for the > Aptitude alioth project. There was friction between Manuel and > Daniel, which eventually resulted in Manuel's commit access being > revoked by Daniel. Since then, Daniel has become inactive, and did > not comment on the issue when requested by the Technical Committee. That reads like a correct description of events as they have been presented to us. > 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed > that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude > development and restore Manuel's commit access. Christian still has > administrative rights and believes he has the technical power to > implement his proposal. However he wants review from a broader > audience before implementing that proposal. Ditto. Did you intend to have these two paragraphs part of the actual decision, or not? > Advice (Constitution 6.1.5): > > 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to > implement his proposal and encourages him to do so. I'd replace "agrees" with "acknowledges", but beware of my en_CH ! > 2. The committee agrees that restoring Manuel's commit access is a > good step to move Aptitude development forward. Since there is a > clear way to accomplish this goal within the existing Aptitude > project support that approach. I don't understand this second sentence. Is there some punctuation hiccup? > 3. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to managed the social > aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers, > building a stronger Aptitude development community, and establishing > policies and procedures that promote a collaborative team. Sometimes > the skills necessary to grow a community ar different than the skills > to develop a project. Through this approach we hope the Aptitude > community will gain both sets of skills. Although I don't disagree with the paragraph, I'm not overly comfortable with formalizing our hopes in a resolution. I'd rather drop the complete paragraph from the actual decision, eventually moving it to a non-formal part (either pre- or post- decision). > 4. We thank Manuel for bringing this matter to our attention and > apologize for our delay in resolving this matter. Good. As you probably noticed from my comments above, I'd rather have a longer "background" part and a small, but straight-to-the-point formal resolution text. Opinions? Cheers, OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
