Soren Stoutner writes ("Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload"):
> As someone who has read every email in this chain, I have a couple of
> recommendations.
>
> 1. Clarify that the GR does not prevent future flexibility in changing the
> tag2upload service and does not give Sean Whitton, Ian Jackson, Jonathan
> McDowell, or Russ Allbery perpetual power to direct how it is implemented.
> This was already discussed as the intent, but I think it should be clearer in
> the GR itself who has authority to implement and manage tag2upload going
> forward.
I agree.
IMO Russ is right to say that extablished project norms answer this
question definitively, but this has come up more than once. We need
it to be clear *in the text*.
> My recommendation is that either, 1) the tag2upload service should
> come under the implementation and management umbrella of the
> ftpmasters delegation, or, 2) the DPL should create a new delegation
> to implement and manage the tag2upload service. The DPL might
> consider appointing one or more of the four people listed above as
> either ftpmasters or to the new delegation (assuming they are
> interested and willing).
This is a good point.
Currently the *.dgit.d.o service maintainers are in a kind of
governance limbo, since we just set up the service and now run it. If
someone didn't like one of our decisions (for example, if we declined
a maintainers' request to rewind a project's git history), the
escalation process is not clear. That's not satisfactory. IMO we
(the *.dgit.d.o service maintainers) should probably be delegates.
The tag2upload conversion service becomes quite a critical piece of
infrastructure. Realistically, it'll have to be maintained by the
src:dgit team, since we know how it works.
So I agree that this should be dealt with by DPL delegations.
However, I don't want to get into this in the GR text. For two
reasons. It is super important that GR texts should be short.
Experience suggests that voting Project Members are more like electors
in a public vote, than legislators: we should ask Members to decide
broad policy, not ask them to approve details of governance.
How about we add a bullet point, something like this:
* This resolution neither prevents, nor encourages, any future
changes.
This leaves the resolution of any disputes implicit. In practice this
means the DPL, which I think is fine.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
