Am 07.02.2014 13:58, schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
>The Debian Policy team defines Debian's technical framework,
>including the structure and contents of the Debian archive
So, the FTPTeam just got that ripped out of their gut.
Which means we can stop doing NEW and in a slightly more extreme
interpretation even stop all our cronjobs. We are no longer the
ones doing the contents, so how could we accept anything?
The part about the structure is also very debatable, this has also
been a part of FTPMaster in the past. I can see a small point in
sharing this with the team that writes down Policy, but thats a
small
one.
Given the discussion that followed the previous delegation update, I
tried to make sure that this one wouldn't raise any concerns, so I
assure you that I thought about this text. :-)
Additionally, that text was sent for review to 8 people:
- Ian, as the one who raised the concerns about the previous version
- the Debian project secretary and his assistant
- the policy editors delegates
- Zack, as the DPL who wrote the previous version of the delegation
And no one of the team thats babysitting the archive... :)
Policy editors define Debian's technical framework, which is
documented in the Debian Policy Manual.
Which is a change to the past, but you explain that one elsewhere.
That includes deciding on things such as which archive areas
(main, contrib, non-free) are needed in the archive [that's
*structure*],
and define the general rules about what goes in each section
[that's *contents*]. They also define the list of priorities
(required, important, etc.) [*structure*] and define the criteria for
each priority [*contents*].
Regarding sections (admin, text, python, etc.), they delegate
the decisions on maintaining the list of sections, and their
respective contents, to the archive maintainers (see Policy, 2.4).
So a delegate delegates again, right.
Ok, basically what we did with the release team (and then they got DPL
delegated),
backports (and then...). Fine, team can give away rights they have to
others.
FTP masters maintain the archive. They decide how files and
directories are organized on Debian archive repositories, provided
that this does not conflict with the general framework defined by the
Policy editors.
They also decide, for each package, whether the suggestion made by
the maintainer (on archive area, priority, section, etc.) is a
valid one, by implementing and interpreting what is defined by the
Policy Editors, and in the DFSG (e.g. what is acceptable in
main/contrib/non-free). They are also responsible for the general
consistency of the archive.
With (my) plain english, the delegation reads different than the
explanation.
That does need a redefined structure/content and leads to reactions
like
my mail. Or what we had on IRC.
I would like to add something else:
I don't think that one should read delegations in search of loopholes
that
would give some team more powers than what is generally understood.
"Generally understood" in a project as widely dispersed as others can
be
very different for people. I haven't even read it searching for
loopholes.
The different understanding of what content/structure mean in this
context
between you and me show that its very easy to have a different reading
of it.
I do think this should be clarified in the official delegation.
--
bye Joerg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/f207979946c69708a6ed4c070608c...@mail.ganneff.de
