Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Kurt Roeckx writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:24:16PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages setting out position statements are permitted and which are also unconstitutional ? I think it all depends on what the statement says, and how it can be interpreted. For instance, if we end up with a policy on how to deal with incomming trademarks I think that would fall under 4.1.5 and would need a GR. But you could also interprete is as just a decision of the DPL, and I guess it all comes down on how you write it down. I imagine the document would provide a set of recommendations for maintainers, sponsors, ftpmasters, and so forth. Obviously it couldn't make any final decisions because it wouldn't deal with specific cases. But from a constitutional point of view I think it is be anomalous that there is any doubt about anyone's ability to write non-binding position statements on any matter. I guess I'll have to try to fix this along with the other three or four bugs which I have in my queue along with the TC supermajority bug. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20724.655.346704.848...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:24:16PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: A little while ago I wrote this: I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list: - Formal policy document from the DPL [...] And I would hope that a decision to publish such a statement would be a decision by the DPL and therefore subject to overturn by GR. Some people have suggested that such an action by the DPL would need a constitutional change. Can you please confirm your interpretation of the constitution ? So I think the question is on how to interprete 3.1.1: [An individual Developer may] make any technical or nontechnical decision with regard to their own work; 4.1.5: [The Developers by way of General Resolution or election may] Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. And 5.1.4: [The Project Leader may] Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. Only 4.1.5 talks about nontechnical policy and position statements, the other 2 talk about decisions. I think the constituion is written to imply that if someone has a right to do something, that nobody else has it. So I would say that we can only make position statements of the type meant in 4.1.5 by way of General Resolution. The question then is what kind of position statement are they, and how is that different from a decision. I think the intention is that it's about the position of Debian, it talks about the goals of the project. So I think it can't be about the goal some package or group of packages. I think that would not fall under 4.1.5 and so not covered at all by the consitution. So I see no problem with such statements. If it's clear that it's not an official Debian position but the individual's position I also see no problem with it. If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages setting out position statements are permitted and which are also unconstitutional ? I think it all depends on what the statement says, and how it can be interpreted. For instance, if we end up with a policy on how to deal with incomming trademarks I think that would fall under 4.1.5 and would need a GR. But you could also interprete is as just a decision of the DPL, and I guess it all comes down on how you write it down. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130112002306.ga24...@roeckx.be
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
A little while ago I wrote this: There are often topics about where it would be useful to have a statement of position, or some recommendations for project participants (or for users or citizens). I'm speaking here primarily of nontechnical matters. Often these are in the remit of individual maintainers or maintainership teams. So for example, the boundaries of what counts as a release-critical bug, or decisions about licence acceptability. But there are also topics which aren't covered by an existing team or delegation. There are a couple of these that are on the DPL's plate right now: - Dealing with inbound trademarks. Ie, how best to deal with possible trademark risks in the software we deal with; - A requests from Debian as a whole to its downstreams including particularly a specific request to eg Ubuntu; Up to this point in the project we have normally published only: - GRs - Formal policy documents issued by teams (of which the Dev Ref is an example); - Press releases - Informal statements by individuals I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list: - Formal policy document from the DPL This would be implemented by the DPL establishing a section of the website where they provide, in their role as Project Leader, some statements of their opinion about matters relating to Debian. For avoidance of doubt I envisage that the website section would be under the control of whoever was the DPL at the time (and any Delegates they appoint for the task of gardening it or parts of it). So a future DPL could revoke or amend the statements. And I would hope that a decision to publish such a statement would be a decision by the DPL and therefore subject to overturn by GR. Some people have suggested that such an action by the DPL would need a constitutional change. Can you please confirm your interpretation of the constitution ? If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages setting out position statements are permitted and which are also unconstitutional ? h1Position Statements from the Debian Project Leader/h1 h1Position Statements from Charles Plessey, Debian Developer/h1 h1Position Statements from the Debian Emacs team/h1 h1Position Statements from Alice Jones, Debian Gnomovision Maintainer/h1 h1Position Statements from Barking Kook, Debian User/h1 h1Position Statements from the Debian Project Secretary/h1 h1Position Statements from the Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Position Statements from Andreas Barth, member of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Position Statements from ow...@bugs.debian.org/h1 I look forward to hearing your views. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20716.18480.431085.374...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Daniel Pocock writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): On 28/12/12 15:25, Holger Levsen wrote: I disagree this is a good idea/road but I'm not motivated anymore to discuss this further. Anybody can say anything anyhow and so can the DPL. Extending this blankly and blindly is not wise, IMO. Ian's email [1] suggests two possible ways forward: a) ensuring open and transparent disclosure (even if identities are concealed), which at the very least would make sure nothing like this can ever happen again My message was nothing to do with Debconf and I assume Holger's reply wasn't either. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20708.10155.458004.970...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Hi, I regret sending this mail. I'm sorry, I was demotivated and annoyed and should have kept quiet. bye, Holger (and this had to do with DebConf, Ian.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201301021401.58999.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Holger Levsen writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I regret sending this mail. I'm sorry, I was demotivated and annoyed and should have kept quiet. OK, well we'll let is rest then. Holger (and this had to do with DebConf, Ian.) I do need to clarify then: I didn't intend to suggest that a DPL position statement about Debconf would be helpful. I don't think the rest of the thread was about Debconf. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20708.17643.26942.694...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
On Mittwoch, 2. Januar 2013, Ian Jackson wrote: I didn't intend to suggest that a DPL position statement about Debconf would be helpful. I don't think the rest of the thread was about Debconf. Same here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201301021544.06244.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
I disagree this is a good idea/road but I'm not motivated anymore to discuss this further. Anybody can say anything anyhow and so can the DPL. Extending this blankly and blindly is not wise, IMO. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201212281525.14573.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
On 28/12/12 15:25, Holger Levsen wrote: I disagree this is a good idea/road but I'm not motivated anymore to discuss this further. Anybody can say anything anyhow and so can the DPL. Extending this blankly and blindly is not wise, IMO. Ian's email [1] suggests two possible ways forward: a) ensuring open and transparent disclosure (even if identities are concealed), which at the very least would make sure nothing like this can ever happen again b) making some kind of action, which may be perceived as mitigating risk or even a punitive action (that distinction was not made in Ian's email) I agree there is enough information to demand (a), a more thorough disclosure, although I continue to feel that it can be done through an independent audit/review[2] that is likely to protect the names of specific sponsors, if appropriate, in accordance with normal commercial best practice. On issue (b), we actually have a serious problem, because it is not clear to me what rules have been broken. I just made a quick review of the Debian constitution and it explains that DPL delegates are free to operate as they see fit (s8.3) In many countries, corporations law expects a director to operate in the best interests of the shareholder and to make a declaration about any transaction that they have an interest in, here is an example: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/directors-responsibilities I would contend that there is a big difference between the Debian constitution and the examples typically found in corporations law and employment contracts. The only thing in the constitution that appears to restrict the activities of a DPL delegate is the obligation in s2.1.1 not to actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. Some people might argue that adding more rules about the conduct of the DPL, delegates and other office holders is not necessary for the organisation. Certainly, it would be painful if a developer had to fill out a due diligence form every time they upload a revision to a package. On the other hand, it could be argued that for roles and decisions involving money or legally binding contracts, over a certain threshold, e.g. $5,000, then a more stringent set of rules should be applied, just like in many other organisations. It could also be argued that more stringent rules should apply for DPL, delegates and office holders than for ordinary developers. On the other hand, if we all know what free software means, why bother having the DFSG in writing? Isn't it superfluous? Just as we need such statements as a benchmark for technical decisions, we need the same stringent approach to financial and probity matters. DebConf appears to be the biggest financial exercise related to Debian, and it also involves expenditures by individual participants, particularly in 2013, when the availability of sponsorship for attendance is restricted by the budget and the disproportionately high prices demanded by Swiss train companies, hotels, etc. This means it should be a shining example of best practice in areas of financial transparency. So once again, I would call for these high level issues to be dealt with from a governance perspective rather than making a focus on any particular individuals at this stage. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/12/msg00066.html 2. http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20121213.222444.a9e64b55.en.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50de3684.40...@pocock.com.au
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Charles Plessy writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I just noted that, looking at our constitution from a formal point of view, it does not answer directly to the questions who represent Debian ? and who can define Debian's opinion, I'm confused. Are you are, or are you not, objecting to the idea of the DPL establishing a section of the website where they provide some statements of their opinion about matters relating to Debian ? If you are not objecting then there is no problem. I don't think anyone else has objected here. So Zack should go ahead and do that. If you are objecting, then please explain why you object to that but not to statements of opinion (many of which are on www.d.o) from other individuals role holders and informal (not constitutionally established) teams ? and proposed an interpretation that is in line with some argumentations read earlier, that a GR was necessary for our project to declare formally that everybody is welcome. My view is that the diversity statement needed a GR not for formal reasons but to demonstrate in the face of objections that the project was solidly behind the diversity statement. By its nature the diversity statement is non-binding and it has its effect through the fact that it has been demonstrated to have overwhelming support. That demonstration required a GR. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20651.37156.679103.172...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:19:27AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: In particular, the constitution does not empower anybody to be the spokeperson or representative of the Project, therefore it looks logical that only a GR defines the opinion of the project. Well, this could be interesting, as I've certainly done exactly this as a press officer, under the delegation at https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/03/msg00011.html Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Charles Plessy writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements that may also include position statements about issues of the day ? So just to press you on this, of the following prospective web pages setting out position statements, which are OK or not OK according to your reading of the constitution: h1Opinions of the Debian Project Leader/h1 h1Opinions of Charles Plessey, Debian Developer/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Emacs team/h1 h1Opinions of Alice Jones, Debian Gnomovision Maintainer/h1 h1Opinions of Barking Kook, Debian User/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Project Secretary/h1 h1Opinions of the Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of Andreas Barth, member of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of ow...@bugs.debian.org/h1 It's clear that the following are explicitly permitted: h1Opinions of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Developers expressed in General Resolutions/h1 But IMO the only reason for those to be listed explicitly is that they are governed by a formal decisionmaking process involving the drafting and approval of resolutions. So for those bodies it is necessary for the constitution to conclusively list all of the things which might be in such a resolution. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20650.24484.58922.867...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Le Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:34:44PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : Charles Plessy writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements that may also include position statements about issues of the day ? So just to press you on this, of the following prospective web pages setting out position statements, which are OK or not OK according to your reading of the constitution: h1Opinions of the Debian Project Leader/h1 h1Opinions of Charles Plessey, Debian Developer/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Emacs team/h1 h1Opinions of Alice Jones, Debian Gnomovision Maintainer/h1 h1Opinions of Barking Kook, Debian User/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Project Secretary/h1 h1Opinions of the Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of Andreas Barth, member of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of ow...@bugs.debian.org/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Technical Committee/h1 h1Opinions of the Debian Developers expressed in General Resolutions/h1 I think that there is a big misunderstanding. When I write that the constitution does not empower anybody to repesent Debian, a) I do not write that it forbids everybody to represent Debian, and b) I do not mean that it forbids everybody to represent Debian. I also did not write nor mean that our constitution forbids other people to represent themselves, other bodies than the Debian project, nor to have their own opinions. I just noted that, looking at our constitution from a formal point of view, it does not answer directly to the questions who represent Debian ? and who can define Debian's opinion, and proposed an interpretation that is in line with some argumentations read earlier, that a GR was necessary for our project to declare formally that everybody is welcome. I also probably misunderstood your original proposition, so perhaps it is better to wait for other people's comments in order to make this thread more interesting. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121119225609.ga10...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Charles Plessy writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements that may also include position statements about issues of the day ? The TC is also empowered to make such statements. Note that individual developers are also not formally empowered by the constitutionto make nontechnical position statements about issues of the day. Does that mean that we should all stop posting to -devel and -project ? :-) When I drafted that the reason I put the thing about position statements for GRs and TC resolutions is because otherwise it wouldn't have been clear whether a GR or TC resolution was allowed to explain anything or give recommendations or what have you - since a GR or TC resolution is obviously something which has to be done according to the rules written in the constitution. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would suggest that an individual person (whether a person who holds a leadership role or not) would not be entitled to express their opinion. If we are going to change the constitution we should add the statements of opinion power to everyone. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20648.65520.75065.51...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): If we are going to change the constitution we should add the statements of opinion power to everyone. ... and if we do that, are we saying that people who aren't DDs aren't allowed to have opinions ? :-) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20649.1251.70795.324...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Le Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:34:08PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : Charles Plessy writes (Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements): I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements that may also include position statements about issues of the day ? The TC is also empowered to make such statements. Note that individual developers are also not formally empowered by the constitutionto make nontechnical position statements about issues of the day. Does that mean that we should all stop posting to -devel and -project ? :-) Hi, my understanding of the constitution is that only the Developers via a GR can make statements such as: Debian's position is Of course, everybody can write I think / guess / am totally sure / ... that Debian's position is..., but this is not the same. One can also write bluntly Debian's position is... and be right or wrong, but this still is not the same, as individual statements do not define Debian's position. In particular, the constitution does not empower anybody to be the spokeperson or representative of the Project, therefore it looks logical that only a GR defines the opinion of the project. This may be the consequence that the Constitution is mostly about decision making. A well-written addition about representativeness may simplify future debates similar to one for the welcome GR. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121118231927.ga24...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
Le Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:39:08PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : Up to this point in the project we have normally published only: - GRs - Formal policy documents issued by teams (of which the Dev Ref is an example); - Press releases - Informal statements by individuals I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list: - Formal policy document from the DPL Dear Ian, I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements that may also include position statements about issues of the day ? From the discussion on the diversity statement, I thought that there was a rough consensus that the Debian Position on Software Patents is an example of statement that needs a GR, and that the reason it has not been voted is lack of motivation (why spend time for something that does not change much in practice), rather than lack of need. I think that to do what you propose cleanly, we would need to amend our constitution, otherwise soon or later it will mislead Developers. As Stefano underlined, it will also be important to clarify whether or not the statements are formal rules that need to be formally amended if we deviate from them. Altoghether, I think that it would be useful to give to the DPL the possibility to issue written statements similar to press releases describing the state of the consensus in the project, without being binding as the consensus may change. Have a nice Sunday, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121117235143.ga6...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:39:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: There are often topics about where it would be useful to have a statement of position, or some recommendations for project participants (or for users or citizens). I'm speaking here primarily of nontechnical matters. Ack. But there are also topics which aren't covered by an existing team or delegation. There are a couple of these that are on the DPL's plate right now: - Dealing with inbound trademarks. Ie, how best to deal with possible trademark risks in the software we deal with; For ease of reference, this is the summary I've posted here https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00073.html I think it's a very good example. On one hand we did the corresponding discussions and synthesized the outcome in a summary that was consensual at the time. On the other, if we simply leave things as they are, we will lose track of the result of that discussion and we will be doomed to repeat the whole discussion eventually. The need is then to document the result somewhere, as a project best practice. Up to this point in the project we have normally published only: - GRs FWIW, we can theoretically keep on using GRs. But there is a huge disincentive in doing so due to the heavy footprint of the process. Additionally, as the last part of the diversity statement GR has shown, there are also legitimate concerns that GR results are set in stone, hence improving them (which is generally needed over time) will force to use the same heavyweight process over and over again. I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list: - Formal policy document from the DPL Of course like any other DPL decision these would be published by the DPL after discussion and consensus-seeking. And if the matter turns out to be too controversial, or the DPL wants to make sure the document has a good mandate, the GR process is available (either via the route of a DPL-initiated GR, or an overruling GR). I think this would be sensible, but I'm biased on this discussion for at least 6 more months :-). I'd like to point out that, de facto, DPL statements already exist: if a DPL is interviewed at events or for magazines for example, people will pay a lot of attention to what is said and consider them as somehow official _project_ statements. And if those statements are annoying for the project, I'm pretty sure GR will be used to overrule the DPL. We have seen examples of this in the past, both regarding the DPL and other core teams. So I don't think formalizing this would change current practices. I'll just give us a new, less volatile place (e.g. a www.d.o section) where to store information that at present have no good place where to live. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this matter... 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
Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements
There are often topics about where it would be useful to have a statement of position, or some recommendations for project participants (or for users or citizens). I'm speaking here primarily of nontechnical matters. Often these are in the remit of individual maintainers or maintainership teams. So for example, the boundaries of what counts as a release-critical bug, or decisions about licence acceptability. But there are also topics which aren't covered by an existing team or delegation. There are a couple of these that are on the DPL's plate right now: - Dealing with inbound trademarks. Ie, how best to deal with possible trademark risks in the software we deal with; - A requests from Debian as a whole to its downstreams including particularly a specific request to eg Ubuntu; Up to this point in the project we have normally published only: - GRs - Formal policy documents issued by teams (of which the Dev Ref is an example); - Press releases - Informal statements by individuals I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list: - Formal policy document from the DPL Of course like any other DPL decision these would be published by the DPL after discussion and consensus-seeking. And if the matter turns out to be too controversial, or the DPL wants to make sure the document has a good mandate, the GR process is available (either via the route of a DPL-initiated GR, or an overruling GR). But I think on many topics it ought to be possible to get consensus within the project on a position which clearly reflects the views of most of the DDs. (And implicitly where those who disagree with the DPL's statement can feel that their views have been taken into account but can also see that ultimately those views are not widely shared.) Do we think it would be proper, for example, to write up as a DPL-issued document the best practice for dealing with inbound trademarks ? The alternative for this issue would seem to be to run it as a GR. I think that's too heavyweight a process; we should be using it where important matters of principle are at stake, or where we haven't been able to see where consensus lies or indeed get a good enough rough consensus on a particular approach. Another example of a possible document of this kind would have been the diversity statement. I think it would have been proper, if there had been enough agreement, for the DPL to issue that statement themselves. But as it turned out, the level of consensus wasn't sufficient particularly given that the diversity statement needed a solid mandate - so a GR was required. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20622.48956.195581.813...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
