Re: policy delegation ping and call for help

[Jeremiah Foster]

On Aug 13, 2012, at 22:56, Andreas Barth wrote:

> * Stefano Zacchiroli (lea...@debian.org) [120813 20:39]:
>> - If you are currently a (delegated) Policy editor, please reconfirm
>>  your interest in such a role, by mailing me and/or this list. (For the
>>  avoidance of doubt, I'm Bcc:-ing all current delegates.)

I lurk here and am very grateful for the work done by everyone on this list. I 
must say that Russ has been indefatigable in his work on this list and has been 
a consistent presence for positive forward movement. I strongly feel the policy 
work would be much diminished without Russ. 

This is a note of thanks and hopefully a way of encouraging the DPL to consider 
Russ' contributions especially when doing designations.


Thank you,

Jeremiah


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1357c139-e36f-4321-a93a-d9a802de0...@jeremiahfoster.com

Re: policy delegation ping and call for help

[Andreas Barth]

* Stefano Zacchiroli (lea...@debian.org) [120813 20:39]:
> - If you are currently a (delegated) Policy editor, please reconfirm
>   your interest in such a role, by mailing me and/or this list. (For the
>   avoidance of doubt, I'm Bcc:-ing all current delegates.)

Even if I hadn't been doing much, I'd like to continue work in this
area.


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120813205618.gx13...@mails.so.argh.org

Re: policy delegation ping and call for help

[Charles Plessy]

Hello everybody.

I would like to serve as a Policy editor.

I think that I have a good understanding by experience of the Policy changes
process, of more than half of the Policy chapters, of DocBook syntax, of
how the debian-policy package builds and of how its contents are displayed
on www.debian.org.

I also realised only recently that Jonathan Nieder, who participates actively
to the maintainance of the Policy, is not yet a Debian Developer.  Together
with Bill's comment, I think this calls for moving on a slow pace.  This said,
many thanks to Stefano for starting the process.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120813205518.ga8...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: policy delegation ping and call for help

[Bill Allombert]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 08:38:57PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Dear Policy hackers,
>   during a periodic review of outstanding delegations, the auditors,
> observed that the delegation for the Policy editors is scattered through
> several "patch" mails over ~6 years and across several different mailing
> list.  I'd rather prefer clean slate delegations, and to achieve that
> I'd be happy to renew the policy editors' delegation.
> 
> What best occasion, to check if someone would like to step back as
> editor and if others would like to step in as full editors?
> 
> Concretely:
> 
> - If you are currently a (delegated) Policy editor, please reconfirm
>   your interest in such a role, by mailing me and/or this list. (For the
>   avoidance of doubt, I'm Bcc:-ing all current delegates.)

I'm interested in continuing as a Policy editor.

However I think August is not the month for sending ping email.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: policy delegation ping and call for help

[Russ Allbery]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

> What best occasion, to check if someone would like to step back as
> editor and if others would like to step in as full editors?

Definitely agreed.

> Concretely:

> - If you are currently a (delegated) Policy editor, please reconfirm
>   your interest in such a role, by mailing me and/or this list. (For the
>   avoidance of doubt, I'm Bcc:-ing all current delegates.)

I'm interested in continuing as a Policy editor.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw7q38ix@windlord.stanford.edu

policy delegation ping and call for help

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

Dear Policy hackers,
  during a periodic review of outstanding delegations, the auditors,
observed that the delegation for the Policy editors is scattered through
several "patch" mails over ~6 years and across several different mailing
list.  I'd rather prefer clean slate delegations, and to achieve that
I'd be happy to renew the policy editors' delegation.

What best occasion, to check if someone would like to step back as
editor and if others would like to step in as full editors?

Concretely:

- If you are currently a (delegated) Policy editor, please reconfirm
  your interest in such a role, by mailing me and/or this list. (For the
  avoidance of doubt, I'm Bcc:-ing all current delegates.)

- Similarly, if you are in taking on the full responsibility of Policy
  editor, please let me know. As it happens with delegations, I'll
  consider candidacies at my discretion, but most likely in consultation
  with current (co-)editors.

… and while I'm here, thanks to all this list participants for their
work on the Debian Policy: it is the cornerstone of Debian quality, and
that wouldn't be possible without the work you're all doing here.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Policy delegation

[Michael Meskes]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10818 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:

Interesting date Joerg. :-)

> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made by Branden
> >> in June last year, in:
> >> ...
> > Would you care to tell us why?
> 
> Simple to answer - Manoj has a different opinion about policy and so may

Aren't we talking about three people? 

> hurt the release, which is obviously the only thing that counts today.

So does this count as part of "the experiment" too? :-)

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Policy delegation

[Debian Project Secretary]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:49 +1000, Anthony Towns
 said:  

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Given that there is no delegated power to change the technical
>> policy, I can only see that the technical policy may be changed by
>> a GR, or by the technical committee. 6. Technical committee

> I think you're mistaken, and that policy maintenance comes under the
> usual powers of the individual developers maintaining policy, namely
> section 3.1 ("make any technical or nontechnical decision with
> regard to their own work"). But you're the secretary, so on
> constitutional interpretation your word's final.
 

Well, if it had not been for the fact that the constitution
 calls out the technical policy manuals specifically, and explicitly
 gives powers of changing the technical policy manuals to the tech
 ctte: 

,
| 6. Technical committee
|   6.1. Powers
|The Technical Committee may:
| 1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
|This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals,
`

Also, the developers powers state:
,
| 3. Individual Developers
|   3.1. Powers
|An individual Developer may
| 1. make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their
|own work;
`

Note that changing the technical policy manual is not making
 technical decisions regarding their own work.

>> So the policy editors have no right to upload any new manual,
>> unless the constitutional issues are clarified by the project.

> As per that interpretation, I've added a REJECT for uploads of
> debian-policy. I won't be looking into formally creating a new
> delegation 'til after etch has released, at which point I hope we
> can find at least four people who'll be active in maintaining policy
> according to the policy process we've had for quite some time.

This presupposes that you have either managed to change the
 constitution, or replaced the secretary with one whose views are in
 line with yours -- since under current wording of the constitution,
 that would be unconstitutional.

>> Since it would be unfair of any one who has write permissions to
>> the policy

> All developers have the ability to upload new versions of policy (or
> at least did, prior to the REJECT).

>> Or, perhaps, the tech ctte can directly take over the policy
>> manual, as provided for by the constitution.

> Maintenance of the policy manual is designed to be a lightweight
> task that doesn't require significant creative or editorial
> judgement (that being exercised in the drafting and discussion of
> proposed changes prior to the actual inclusion), that doesn't seem
> entirely out of the question should policy need updating prior to
> etch's release.

manoj
-- 
Work Rule: Men employees will be given off each week for courting
purposes, or two evenings a week if they go regularly to church.
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpeIkwwvAaSo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Policy delegation

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Martin Wuertele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the

Do note that such proposals need to be sent to debian-vote to be
effective.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Policy delegation

[Martin Wuertele]

* Anthony Towns  [2006-10-25 12:49]:

> I won't be looking into formally creating a new delegation 'til after
> etch has released, at which point I hope we can find at least four
> people who'll be active in maintaining policy according to the policy
> process we've had for quite some time.
 
Does it require dunc-tank money to get you to change your mind and find
policy maintainers now?

The release of etch is not a sufficient argument for your decision in my
option.

I therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the
debian constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader
keeping the Package Policy Committee as defined in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00017.html in
place until the Debian Project Leader has found at least three people
"who'll be active in maintaining policy according to the policy
process".

yours Martin
-- 
http://martin.wuertele.net/ -- Debian -- OFTC -- SPI -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 nattie: wo bist DU?
 celosia: im Turm.  soll ich meine Haare runterlassen?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Policy delegation

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 10818 March 1977, Michael Meskes wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made by Branden
>> in June last year, in:
>> ...
> Would you care to tell us why?

Simple to answer - Manoj has a different opinion about policy and so may
hurt the release, which is obviously the only thing that counts today.

-- 
bye Joerg
 Anyone with a cdrw/dvdrw drive up for some crazy experiments? Ever
   noticed how the color changes when you burn something on a CD/DVD?
   Are there ways to control it? I want ISOPAINT: Paint pictures into an
   iso image visible after its burned to cd/dvd.
 interesting idea
 how long have you been off your medication?


pgpi1AzbPBSJx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Policy delegation

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 11:27:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given that there is no delegated power to change the technical
>  policy, I can only see that the technical policy may be changed by a
>  GR, or by the technical committee. 6. Technical committee

I think you're mistaken, and that policy maintenance comes under the
usual powers of the individual developers maintaining policy, namely
section 3.1 ("make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard
to their own work"). But you're the secretary, so on constitutional
interpretation your word's final.

>  So the policy editors have no
>  right to upload any new manual, unless the constitutional issues are
>  clarified by the project.

As per that interpretation, I've added a REJECT for uploads of
debian-policy. I won't be looking into formally creating a new delegation
'til after etch has released, at which point I hope we can find at
least four people who'll be active in maintaining policy according to
the policy process we've had for quite some time.

> Since it would be unfair of any one who has write permissions
>  to the policy 

All developers have the ability to upload new versions of policy (or at
least did, prior to the REJECT).

> Or, perhaps, the tech ctte can directly take over the policy
>  manual, as provided for by the constitution. 

Maintenance of the policy manual is designed to be a lightweight task
that doesn't require significant creative or editorial judgement (that
being exercised in the drafting and discussion of proposed changes prior
to the actual inclusion), that doesn't seem entirely out of the question
should policy need updating prior to etch's release.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Policy delegation

[Michael Meskes]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:29:48AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made by Branden
> in June last year, in:
> ...

Would you care to tell us why?

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Policy delegation

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:29:48 +1000, Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Hi, I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made
> by Branden in June last year, in:

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00017.html

> That leaves debian-policy maintained by subscribers to the
> debian-policy mailing list, according to the process described by
> the "policy-process" document in that package. TTBOMK recent
> versions of policy have been maintained using arch as the revision
> control system of choice, and are available from:

Much has been made about leadership of the Debian project in
 the recent past. In my opinion, the quality of the leadership depends
 on the judgements the leaders make.  Rescinding te delegation is the
 project leaders prerogative; butbasing the decision on no concrete
 actions decries haste and a lack of judgement I find deplorable.

Given that there is no delegated power to change the technical
 policy, I can only see that the technical policy may be changed by a
 GR, or by the technical committee. 6. Technical committee


==
  6.1. Powers

   The Technical Committee may:
1. Decide on any matter of technical policy.
   This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals,
   developers' reference materials, example packages and the
   behaviour of non-experimental package building tools. (In each
   case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
   documentation makes decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).)
5. No detailed design work.
   The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
   and policies. Such design work should be carried out by
   individuals privately or together and discussed in ordinary
   technical policy and design forums.
   The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
   adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
   been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
   Individual members of the technical committee may of course
   participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy
   work.
==

I understand that before we kind of carried on an non
 constitutional process in which a subset of developer changed policy,
 which worked as long as there were o protests. But since we did have
 a delegation for almost two years now, I do not think such
 un-constitutional processes are tenable. So thepolicy editors have no
 right to upload any new manual, unless the constitutional issues are
 clarified by the project.

Mind you, this is not what I wanted -- I am in the process of
 reviewing the use of must, and should, in the technical policy, and
 trying to remove the glaring errors and mistakes in our current
 policy -- but this undelagation ties my hands.  So, while I am
 willing to do the work, and have done so fairly competently since 998
 (goodness, that is 8 years in 5 more days), I no longer think I, or
 any non tech-ctte delegate, has the constitutional authority to
 modify policy.

Since it would be unfair of any one who has write permissions
 to the policy  to upload a technical policy without proper
 constitutional authority, I suggest the project decide how routine
 technical policy updates are going to work, and change the
 constitution accordingly, or the project leader formally delegate
 (heh) a whole mailing list of varying constituents the authority to
 modufy the technical policy given under the constitution only to the
 tech ctte.

Or, perhaps, the tech ctte can directly take over the policy
 manual, as provided for by the constitution. 

manoj
-- 
If someone had told me I would be Pope one day, I would have studied
harder. Pope John Paul I
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Policy delegation

[Anthony Towns]

Hi,

I'm withdrawing the "Package Policy Committee" delegation made by Branden
in June last year, in:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00017.html

That leaves debian-policy maintained by subscribers to the debian-policy
mailing list, according to the process described by the "policy-process"
document in that package. TTBOMK recent versions of policy have been
maintained using arch as the revision control system of choice, and are
available from:

http://arch.debian.org/arch/private/srivasta/archive-etch/debian-policy/

Policy describes itself thus:

This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution.  This includes the structure and contents of the Debian
archive and several design issues of the operating system, as well as
technical requirements that each package must satisfy to be included
in the distribution.

The policy-process document recommends that there be between 4 and 8
policy maintainers/editors, who do not have any special powers and in
particular do not have any creative power nor act as a central control
over the contents of policy. Anyone who would like to help maintain
policy is encouraged and welcome to do so, following the guidelines in
policy-process for proposing and uploading changes.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns
Debian Project Leader


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature