Le vendredi, 2 décembre 2016, 15.42:58 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much > more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes: > > DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS
As a general comment, I am in discomfort with GR proposals which have too much preamble and context as part of the decision. Specifically… > OPTION A > > 1. Our priority is our users and free software. > > 2. Debian maintainership is a position of power and responsibility. > It is an earned position, which arises from work and leadership. > Maintainership should continue so long as the good leadership > continues. These two points should be in an argumentary in favour of the actual GR, and not in the GR text. Having the body of developers "emit" that kind of wording (not that I disagree with it…) opens the door to later interpretations, debate about wording, etc. It's uneeded for a GR to re-state that our priority is our users and free software. We have it a foundation document, and re-stating it out of the blue is doing more harm than good, IMHO. > 3. We give advice to the Technical Committee: Giving "wildcard advice" about maintainership, as output of a discussion triggered by "I think the TC will not decide my way", _before_ the TC is just about to take a decision about maintainership, would (as Phil eloquently put it) imply that the project is not trusting the TC and its members to exercise the powers and duties as defined in the constitution. Would that GR pass, I would most probably resign from the TC. That said… the TC's constitutional mandate _is_ up for discussion, it always was, and should always be. It's entirely fine to discuss how the project wants to distribute its powers and duties internally. But if one wants to address how maintainership is handled, emitting a no-op GR giving advice to the TC members is the wrong hammer for that nail, I think. > 4. The Technical Committee should consider all opinions and options > based on their merits, not based on the authority of the speaker. This wording assumes that the TC currently isn't (same goes for further articles. > OPTION B > > (1-6 as above) > > 7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words > "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority". A GR doing that (amending the constitution to lower the TC majority needed when overruling a developer), and only that, would be a strong message from the project upon the importance it gives to maintainership and developers' decisions. I'm not decided whether I like that specific idea or not, but I certainly feel that such a GR would be much less paternalizing to the TC and its members than any flavour of your Option A. -- Cheers, OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.