[intentionally not signed because this is a comment-seeking draft] Hi. As discussed in [1], I'm forming a delegation advisory group to help me with upcoming delegations.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslftm5c1e7....@suchdamage.org This group will help me by being a group that I can get advice from even when I need to share confidential information to get that advice. One of the reasons I'm proposing to delegate this rather than treating it informally is to make it clear that these people can be part of the process enough to receive confidential information. This group will help the project by being in a position to know the full details behind a delegation and being able to raise any concerns they have to the project. I want this because I want a group of people I feel comfortable seeking advice from even if I need to include private details in my request. Some people in the project wanted additional people besides the DPL to be able to review the internal aspects of delegations. This is the best approach I've come up with for allowing that review while keeping discussions of specific delegates private. The formal mechanism behind delegations is not changing. Formally, I wouldn't need to consult this group, although if I didn't it would be reasonable for people to ask why. I don't need to agree with the advice from the group, although if they have remaining concerns at the time of delegation, that's likely to spark a lot of discussion. Draft Delegation ================ I appoint the following individuals as a Delegation Advisory Group: * Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> * Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> * Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@debian.org> * Enrico Zini <enr...@debian.org> This delegation expires at the end of Sam Hartman's DPL term or when replaced or updated by the DPL. Task Description ---------------- When requested, the delegation Advisory Group may provide advice to the DPL surrounding delegations. Advice may include advice about the choice of delegates, the task description, or the delegation process. The group may be privy to confidential information such as the DPL's analysis of possible choices for delegates that is not suitable for sharing with the project as a whole. If the group is concerned that a particular delegation may not be a reasonable choice for the project, they are encouraged to share their concerns with the project. The group decides how widely concerns should be shared. The group is delegated the power to introduce or amend a general resolution overriding a delegation that the DPL makes without requiring other developers to second the resolution. Non-Normative Appendix ---------------------- Here's how I imagine this working. I include the advisory group in discussions of the delegation. I'd run things by them like my thoughts on delegates and the task description. I'd also be able to talk to them about issues like how fast to go in trying to get resolution on who should be delegates etc or in balancing political issues. I'd expect that in the delegation statement I would note that I'd reviewed the delegation with the advisory group and they didn't have any concerns they wanted to share with the project. I would not expect the advisory group to endorse or lobby for the delegation or write a lot of text to be shared with the project.
