Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On 07/02/14 at 16:27 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: 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. That's also what every team with non-delegated assistants or trainees is doing, too. 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. I'm sorry if this sounded like I implied that you did. That was actually in response to another comment on IRC: x it also means if somebody uploads a new debian-policy package that contains say the DMUP, then the policy editors become the editors of the DMUP Let's try to assume that all delegates will act in good faith. 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. Yeah, I've added that to my TO-DO list... Lucas -- 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/20140208083421.ga30...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: - The complainers are not doing the Policy work, WT.. Seriously, how is this relevant here? The new delegation poaches on terrain previously delegated to other teams, and you do them away as irrelevant complainers? -- | .''`. ** Debian ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- 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/20140208093558.gj3...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: - The complainers are not doing the Policy work, WT.. Seriously, how is this relevant here? The new delegation poaches on terrain previously delegated to other teams, and you do them away as irrelevant complainers? I think Charles was referring to the people who caused a change in the delegation text as complainers, not the people who are complaining about the change in the delegation text? At least that was how I interpreted the complaints that led you to change the delegation. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6hggurdafttxmcwn+vpy510cdq8zoasucqc5bkoybs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, Paul Wise wrote: On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: On Sat, 08 Feb 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: - The complainers are not doing the Policy work, WT.. Seriously, how is this relevant here? The new delegation poaches on terrain previously delegated to other teams, and you do them away as irrelevant complainers? I think Charles was referring to the people who caused a change in the delegation text as complainers, not the people who are complaining about the change in the delegation text? At least that was how I interpreted the complaints that led you to change the delegation. Thanks for clarifying, to you and to Charles who did so off-list. I didn't follow the discussion that led to that change in detail, but my impression was that there were legitimate constitutional concerns that then led to an update. -- | .''`. ** Debian ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- 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/20140208102757.ga25...@anguilla.noreply.org
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On 13481 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote: Thank you Lucas for your efforts, but I think that the best would have been to ignore the complaints that led you to change the delegation. Its still done after getting input from the secretary ruling that it must be different than what was there. And while I disagree with the secretaries opinion on that (I do think it should be possible to delegate that the policy editors DOCUMENT policy and not SET policy without having the non-allowed how to do their work inside), it is a task that shouldn't be ignored forever. Basically, the Policy delegates are in charge of the Policy, the Release delegates are in charge of the Release, the Archive delegates are in charge of the Archive, etc. I don't think we disagree here, and as Lucas has stated that he wants to update the delegation, by now it is mostly an editorial change. I bet we can come up with a wording that wont have the side effects we just saw. -- 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/87wqh54y1h@lennier.ganneff.de
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Am 07.02.2014 11:24, 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. I think someone here has not thought about this text. -- 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/8672773d550158b3e52a4b605b55c...@mail.ganneff.de
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Hi, On 02/07/2014 11:24, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The Debian Policy team defines Debian's technical framework, including the structure and contents of the Debian archive, design issues of the operating system, as well as technical requirements that all packages must satisfy. The Debian Policy team also maintains the Debian Policy Manual and all the other policy documents released as part of the debian-policy package. Besides the issue Joerg raised, do you change the Policy team's role from /documenting/ consensus (as mentioned in Policy 1.3) to actually /defining/ policy? Ansgar -- 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/52f4c9ba.10...@debian.org
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Hi, On 07/02/14 at 12:55 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: On 02/07/2014 11:24, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The Debian Policy team defines Debian's technical framework, including the structure and contents of the Debian archive, design issues of the operating system, as well as technical requirements that all packages must satisfy. The Debian Policy team also maintains the Debian Policy Manual and all the other policy documents released as part of the debian-policy package. Besides the issue Joerg raised, do you change the Policy team's role from /documenting/ consensus (as mentioned in Policy 1.3) to actually /defining/ policy? [ I addressed your question in my reply to Joerg: http://lists.debian.org/20140207125848.ga16...@xanadu.blop.info ] L. -- 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/20140207130230.ga17...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
On 07/02/14 at 12:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Am 07.02.2014 11:24, 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. I think someone here has not thought about this text. 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 None of them had any concerns with the text. But, since you think that this delegation can be interpreted as conflicting with the ftpmasters delegation, let me clarify. [ what follows might be too precise for a delegation text, the goal here is to give an idea of the general spirit through some examples ] Policy editors define Debian's technical framework, which is documented in the Debian Policy Manual. 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). 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. On 07/02/14 at 12:55 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: Besides the issue Joerg raised, do you change the Policy team's role from /documenting/ consensus (as mentioned in Policy 1.3) to actually /defining/ policy? Yes. See the email from the Secretary on that issue [1]: This means that delegations should take care not to perscribe any particular process, or method for working that a delegate should adhere to. It is up to the delegate(s) to form a team and to produce a process themselves. It is, of course required as above that delegates should attempt to implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/01/msg00054.html If I delegate defining policy to the Policy Editors, I cannot at the same time require that they will do that by following consensus, as that would prescribe a particular process (8.2). However, as per constitution 8.3, Policy Editors [..] should [...] follow consensus opinion. More concretely, If they were considering changes that impact the work of ftpmasters, it would expected from them to discuss those changes beforehand with ftpmasters. Policy Editors have a track record of seeking consensual positions, so I would be extremely surprised if they did not do that. There's also the question of the split of roles between the Policy Editors and the Technical Committee: The Policy Editors are in charge of the initial and detailed design of the technical policy. If there's disagreement, the issue can be brought to the technical committee (which requires a simple majority to rule on technical policy, see 6.1.1). 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. Writing delegations that are at the same time not too prescriptive, and descriptive enough, is already quite hard. It would be near-impossible to write them as strict legal texts that avoid all loopholes, while still not making them too prescriptive. What matters is the general spirit. Requests for clarification are welcomed, as well as, generally, talking with teams that are impacted or have an impact on one's work. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
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
Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Le Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:58:48PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : 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 Precision: I wrote it, with input of Stefano and the active Policy editors, using some texts from wiki.debian.org as a starting material. Thank you Lucas for your efforts, but I think that the best would have been to ignore the complaints that led you to change the delegation. - The complainers are not doing the Policy work, - they own work was not affected by the Policy work done under the wording they complained about, and - they did not propose a better wording. Unsurprisingly, the result of trying to satisfy the complainers about their non-problem is to increase division in the project. The hardline that is being taken by the complainers is removing any interest to the delegation texts. Basically, the Policy delegates are in charge of the Policy, the Release delegates are in charge of the Release, the Archive delegates are in charge of the Archive, etc. Some may see it more do-o-cratic, but I find this a step backwards. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20140208040147.ga18...@falafel.plessy.net
