Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:01 PM Dan Streetman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:21 AM Dan Streetman wrote:
> >
> > Hello TB,
> >
> > The Ubuntu Backports team has drafted a Charter and we request that
> > you review it and, if you approve, please provide your approval
> > ("ratification") by email. If you have any concerns or comments,
> > please let us know.
>
> lol, well at least someone finally noticed that I never actually
> included a link to the actual charter xD
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter
sorry again, I should have provided a link to the specific rev for clarity:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter?action=recall=5
the latest rev (as of this email) is 10 but is the same as 5:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter?action=diff=10=5
>
> sorry about that, and thanks vorlon for noticing it was missing :)
>
> >
> > Thanks.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:21 AM Dan Streetman wrote:
>
> Hello TB,
>
> The Ubuntu Backports team has drafted a Charter and we request that
> you review it and, if you approve, please provide your approval
> ("ratification") by email. If you have any concerns or comments,
> please let us know.
lol, well at least someone finally noticed that I never actually
included a link to the actual charter xD
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter
sorry about that, and thanks vorlon for noticing it was missing :)
>
> Thanks.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:46:45PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > However the equivalent text you have now only says "The mission of the > > Ubuntu Backporters Team is to maintain the backports pocket of all > > stable Ubuntu releases." with no mention of that. > > > > In fact that's the case for basically everything I proposed previously. > > > > Is this deliberate? Would you consider replacing your "Mission > > Statement" with the text I suggested previously? > > I don't think so, no. > > > And if not, why not? > > Because your statements aren't a mission, they are policy; and your > statements are not objective. For example, "all requests receive an > appropriate answer in a reasonable amount of time" is not at all > objective and so has no actual meaning in a charter. I'm not sure if we're arguing semantics here in terms of what we each mean by "mission", "policy" and "charter". I'd like to avoid that. I am suggesting that we (both the TB and the backporters team) agree to these statements because they would be able to form the documented terms of reference between the rest of Ubuntu and backporters team. They would be the reason for the existence of the backporters team. If a future problem were to arise like the one we had in the past that led to the recent revitalization, then we would be able to use these statements to quickly identify the problem. I agree that "reasonable amount of time" is subjective. However I don't think it's a problem for there to be subjectivity here. Objectively, it was the fact that requests _weren't_ being processed in a reasonable amount of time that was the problem last time. Stating and agreeing to this helps set expectations. Consider what would happen if the backporters team stopped responding to requests, or became unreasonably slow in doing so. That would obviously be a problem - just as it was previously. If it couldn't be resolved directly between everyone involved, somebody might escalate to the TB, and the TB would probably agree that some intervention is required. In other words, it's *already* a hard expectation that "all requests receive an appropriate answer in a reasonable amount of time" whether or not it's written down and directly agreed to. So why don't we agree and write it down to help set everyone's expectation to what the reality is anyway? Isn't that the point of documenting this kind of thing, and exactly the sort of documentation you've said elsewhere you think is lacking? > > > > IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides > > > > for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things > > > > as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants > > > > have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's > > > > absolutely fine. > > > > > > > > But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it > > > > > > So that the powers delegated to the team are explicitly stated... > > > > I agree that this part makes sense. > > > > > that the "main" rules are also explicitly stated (with "main" being > > > subjective, and decided by our team). > > > > Why do you want this to be part of the TB's ratification? > > Because it's completely unclear what powers/policies/rules the TB > reserves for itself. Am I right in understanding that your concern is that the TB will later tell you that you aren't allowed to do something that you've written down in your rules already? Would it work for you if the TB were to look at your document and agree just that the set of rules you've written for yourself seem reasonable and are all within the remit of the backporters team to perform, rather than also formally binding anyone to anything? I would still like to talk about having a documented delegation in the form that I proposed, but this suggestion would address my separate concern that you're asking the TB to lock the backporters team down in a way that I don't think is appropriate. > There is no section called "team responsibilities" nor "powers > delegated to the team" so I'm not 100% clear on what you *do* think > the TB needs to ratify, vs. what you *do not* think the TB should be > involved in...can you clarify? "powers delegated to the team" were your words. "team responsibilities" are a heading in my email here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2021-July/041559.html Specifically what I think would be useful for the TB to ratify is what I wrote in my email here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html > Any sections that you feel should be removed from the Charter (i.e. > moved into the team official policies document: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Policies), please let me know. > Assuming you are speaking for the TB, of course. I think it's premature to "speak for the TB" at this stage. Let's first try and figure out a way forward that everyone agrees upon. If we can achieve that, then "speaking for" any
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:27 PM Robie Basak wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:10:38PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > The team has had previous discussions around governance, yes, and of
> > course those discussions played a part in forming this document. I
> > don't really know what exactly you mean by any/all discussions being
> > 'incorporated' into the document?
>
> For example, I had suggested the text "Any review process must accept or
> reject every backport request on its technical merit, and be neutral to
> who is requesting it" with a footnote that explained the rationale as
> "the process must avoid the current situation where only privileged
> people can get their uploads reviewed, and everyone else is blocked"
>
> ("current" there is now, I believe, "past")
>
> However the equivalent text you have now only says "The mission of the
> Ubuntu Backporters Team is to maintain the backports pocket of all
> stable Ubuntu releases." with no mention of that.
>
> In fact that's the case for basically everything I proposed previously.
>
> Is this deliberate? Would you consider replacing your "Mission
> Statement" with the text I suggested previously?
I don't think so, no.
> And if not, why not?
Because your statements aren't a mission, they are policy; and your
statements are not objective. For example, "all requests receive an
appropriate answer in a reasonable amount of time" is not at all
objective and so has no actual meaning in a charter.
>
> > > IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides
> > > for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things
> > > as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants
> > > have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's
> > > absolutely fine.
> > >
> > > But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it
> >
> > So that the powers delegated to the team are explicitly stated...
>
> I agree that this part makes sense.
>
> > that the "main" rules are also explicitly stated (with "main" being
> > subjective, and decided by our team).
>
> Why do you want this to be part of the TB's ratification?
Because it's completely unclear what powers/policies/rules the TB
reserves for itself.
>
> > > and lock in the
> > > requirement that the TB must approve any changes? For example, you've
> > > said "This charter, and any changes to it, must be approved by the TB
> > > before taking effect" but also you've got minutiae in there such as
> > > which IRC channel is used and on what network. Won't causing the TB to
> > > "lock this in" be excessively beaurocratic? And what if you need a minor
> > > change? Are you expecting to go to the TB every time? Won't that be
> > > impractical?
> >
> > Sorry, these questions seem subjective and rhetorical - I'm not sure
> > if you intend for our team to answer them? Do they need to be answered
> > for the TB to review and/or ratify this charter?
>
> I don't think the questions are rhetorical. I do think they need
> answering because if unanswered then I don't understand why it's within
> scope for the TB to consider ratifying these details at all.
>
> Summary:
>
> 1) Details of team responsibilities and "powers delegated to the team"
> make sense for the TB to ratify.
>
> 2) Details of how the team carries out their responsibilities seem like
> matters for the team to manage themselves and I currently don't see why
> they're any business of the TB unless some kind of conflict or other
> problem arises (and I don't know of any). I invite further discussion
> and argument to why they should be within the scope of the TB today, but
> in the absence of any explanation or argument, I'm inclined to consider
> this part out of scope and therefore (wearing my TB hat) decline to get
> involved.
There is no section called "team responsibilities" nor "powers
delegated to the team" so I'm not 100% clear on what you *do* think
the TB needs to ratify, vs. what you *do not* think the TB should be
involved in...can you clarify?
Any sections that you feel should be removed from the Charter (i.e.
moved into the team official policies document:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Policies), please let me know.
Assuming you are speaking for the TB, of course.
>
> Robie
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 04:10:38PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> The team has had previous discussions around governance, yes, and of
> course those discussions played a part in forming this document. I
> don't really know what exactly you mean by any/all discussions being
> 'incorporated' into the document?
For example, I had suggested the text "Any review process must accept or
reject every backport request on its technical merit, and be neutral to
who is requesting it" with a footnote that explained the rationale as
"the process must avoid the current situation where only privileged
people can get their uploads reviewed, and everyone else is blocked"
("current" there is now, I believe, "past")
However the equivalent text you have now only says "The mission of the
Ubuntu Backporters Team is to maintain the backports pocket of all
stable Ubuntu releases." with no mention of that.
In fact that's the case for basically everything I proposed previously.
Is this deliberate? Would you consider replacing your "Mission
Statement" with the text I suggested previously? And if not, why not?
> > IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides
> > for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things
> > as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants
> > have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's
> > absolutely fine.
> >
> > But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it
>
> So that the powers delegated to the team are explicitly stated...
I agree that this part makes sense.
> that the "main" rules are also explicitly stated (with "main" being
> subjective, and decided by our team).
Why do you want this to be part of the TB's ratification?
> > and lock in the
> > requirement that the TB must approve any changes? For example, you've
> > said "This charter, and any changes to it, must be approved by the TB
> > before taking effect" but also you've got minutiae in there such as
> > which IRC channel is used and on what network. Won't causing the TB to
> > "lock this in" be excessively beaurocratic? And what if you need a minor
> > change? Are you expecting to go to the TB every time? Won't that be
> > impractical?
>
> Sorry, these questions seem subjective and rhetorical - I'm not sure
> if you intend for our team to answer them? Do they need to be answered
> for the TB to review and/or ratify this charter?
I don't think the questions are rhetorical. I do think they need
answering because if unanswered then I don't understand why it's within
scope for the TB to consider ratifying these details at all.
Summary:
1) Details of team responsibilities and "powers delegated to the team"
make sense for the TB to ratify.
2) Details of how the team carries out their responsibilities seem like
matters for the team to manage themselves and I currently don't see why
they're any business of the TB unless some kind of conflict or other
problem arises (and I don't know of any). I invite further discussion
and argument to why they should be within the scope of the TB today, but
in the absence of any explanation or argument, I'm inclined to consider
this part out of scope and therefore (wearing my TB hat) decline to get
involved.
Robie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:34 PM Robie Basak wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:44:43PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > I see this charter as the one and only official document (except where > > the charter specifically delegates to other document(s)) for guiding > > what the team does and how the team does it. It supersedes any > > previous discussion. Is that what you are asking? > > I'm asking to what extent you consider the previous discussion to have > been incorporated into your current document, if at all. The team has had previous discussions around governance, yes, and of course those discussions played a part in forming this document. I don't really know what exactly you mean by any/all discussions being 'incorporated' into the document? > > IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides > for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things > as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants > have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's > absolutely fine. > > But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it So that the powers delegated to the team are explicitly stated and so that the "main" rules are also explicitly stated (with "main" being subjective, and decided by our team). > and lock in the > requirement that the TB must approve any changes? For example, you've > said "This charter, and any changes to it, must be approved by the TB > before taking effect" but also you've got minutiae in there such as > which IRC channel is used and on what network. Won't causing the TB to > "lock this in" be excessively beaurocratic? And what if you need a minor > change? Are you expecting to go to the TB every time? Won't that be > impractical? Sorry, these questions seem subjective and rhetorical - I'm not sure if you intend for our team to answer them? Do they need to be answered for the TB to review and/or ratify this charter? > > In case it's not clear, I think what you're proposing is rather > different from my suggestion. I was focusing on the team > responsibilities only - very deliberately leaving *how* the team might > choose to fulfil those responsibilities out of it. > > Robie -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:44:43PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > I see this charter as the one and only official document (except where > the charter specifically delegates to other document(s)) for guiding > what the team does and how the team does it. It supersedes any > previous discussion. Is that what you are asking? I'm asking to what extent you consider the previous discussion to have been incorporated into your current document, if at all. IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's absolutely fine. But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it and lock in the requirement that the TB must approve any changes? For example, you've said "This charter, and any changes to it, must be approved by the TB before taking effect" but also you've got minutiae in there such as which IRC channel is used and on what network. Won't causing the TB to "lock this in" be excessively beaurocratic? And what if you need a minor change? Are you expecting to go to the TB every time? Won't that be impractical? In case it's not clear, I think what you're proposing is rather different from my suggestion. I was focusing on the team responsibilities only - very deliberately leaving *how* the team might choose to fulfil those responsibilities out of it. Robie signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:43 AM Robie Basak wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:21:19AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > The Ubuntu Backports team has drafted a Charter and we request that
> > you review it and, if you approve, please provide your approval
> > ("ratification") by email. If you have any concerns or comments,
> > please let us know.
>
> Related discussions:
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2021-July/041559.html
> (under "Team Responsibilities")
>
> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/09/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:56
>
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html
>
> https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/23/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:39
>
> Dan, how do you see that fitting in here?
I see this charter as the one and only official document (except where
the charter specifically delegates to other document(s)) for guiding
what the team does and how the team does it. It supersedes any
previous discussion. Is that what you are asking?
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
Re: Ubuntu Backports charter
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:21:19AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> The Ubuntu Backports team has drafted a Charter and we request that
> you review it and, if you approve, please provide your approval
> ("ratification") by email. If you have any concerns or comments,
> please let us know.
Related discussions:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2021-July/041559.html
(under "Team Responsibilities")
https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/09/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:56
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html
https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/02/23/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t17:39
Dan, how do you see that fitting in here?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
