Josip Rodin writes ("Re: infrastructure team procedures (fourth edit)"):
> Because this compels the DPL to first verify wheter teams follow these
> rules, and then act only if they don't do so. It doesn't give the DPL
> a carte blanche to add members to teams, and that's intentional.No, it doesn't _compel_ the DPL to do anything. Because the DPL can always claim to have done such a verification. At best it encourages the DPL to act in a reasonable way. I agree that it is good to encourage the DPL to act in a reasonable way. But one of the controversies is whether infrastructure teams are currently, and should be, subject to the authority of the DPL. When I wrote the constitution I intended them to be, but in practice that authority hasn't been exercised. By now, subordinating infrastructure teams to the DPL is a substantial change. If that's the change you are proposing, then fine, but you should do so more clearly. > Can you suggest a better way to phrase this? Preferably not pseudo-code ;) I would get rid of a lot of the detailed rules about team management and leave that more up to the teams. Something like this, to replace the second half of your proposal: Debian developers resolve the following: * Whether a team in Debian constitutes an infrastructure team is decided by the Debian Project Leader. * Infrastructure teams should publish their own processes and guidelines for adding and removing members, which may be detailed or not as the team pleases. * Teams must enable suitably competent and motivated Developers to join and become full members, following only reasonable expenditure of time and effort. * If in the Leader's view an infrastructure team is failing in the duties set out here, the Leader may intervene as follows: the Leader should set out a timetable for improvement (for example, for addition of new members). If the timetable is not met, or the improvements are unsatisfactory to the Leader, the Leader may then add one or more new members to the team. * The Leader should limit such interventions to the minimum necessary, in the Leader's opinion, to rectify the problems. * Following the Leader's decision to add new member(s), the existing team shall promptly provide the new member(s) with all of the necessary access privileges, documentation, and such other assistance as may be needed to fully take on the team's responsibilities. I think, though, that your approach is fundamentally flawed for two reasons: Firstly because I don't think empowering the Leader in this way is a conducive to good relations with the teams. Secondly because in practice past DPL's have been very reluctant to exercise of powers of this form even when they felt they had them. I think instead you should create a duty of the DPL to resolve complaints. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
