On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 02:56:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:22:01PM +0100, Secretary - Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:10:08PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >
> > As there has been no comments on the draft text I'll make that
> > the official r
Le Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:22:01PM +0100, Secretary - Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:10:08PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> As there has been no comments on the draft text I'll make that
> the official response. I want to thank Neil from writing this
> all down.
Hi Kurt and
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:10:08PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I think me and Kurt have now reached consensus about the issue - and as
> such we'd welcome any comments on the draft, available below!
As there has been no comments on the draft text I'll make that
the official response
Neil McGovern writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> I think me and Kurt have now reached consensus about the issue - and as
> such we'd welcome any comments on the draft, available below!
Thanks, Neil. It appears that most people disagree with me about the
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:39:55PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
> > Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
> > should have come fr
Le Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:21:52PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> The policy editors' decisions on the contents of policy (or their
> failure to make such decisions) are subject to review by the TC, as I
> note above. The TC may overrule the editors with a simple majority.
I still do not under
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
> already used in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg6.html and
*nod*
FWIW, the "job description" detailed in that delegation---wh
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
> Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
> should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
> Dear Secretary, what do you think?
>
Hia,
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> >
> > > This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> > > and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> > > trivially bypassable, beca
Peter Palfrader writes:
> But whether or not that document has any meaning or influence is a
> question for the ftp-masters, release team, and tech-ctte.
> The power of the policy maintainers comes from them being listened to by
> various teams, but those teams can revoke that and listen to some
Le lundi, 6 janvier 2014, 16.21:52 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I think the constitutional position of the policy team is as follows:
>
> They are a package maintainer team. They normally make their
> decisions themselves under 3.1.1.
I think that framing the policy team primarily into a package
mai
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> > and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> > trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who derives their
> > powers
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140106 17:22]:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> > .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
> > already used in
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-
Ian Jackson writes:
> This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who derives their
> powers from the DPL and the constitution limits the powers o
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > The policy editors will continue to be the maintainers of the policy
> > package, and can change the policy team membership and the policy
> > process as they see fit.
Ian Jackson writes:
> So, in summary, I think there is nothing to be done here, except
> (ideally) for you to withdraw the delegation statement.
> The policy editors will continue to be the maintainers of the policy
> package, and can change the policy team membership and the policy
> process as
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
> already used in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg6.html and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-
.oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
already used in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg6.html and
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg4.html)
On 06/01/14 at 13:51 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03,
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> > Have you seen some mistakes that would help us (or at least me)
> > understand which problems you're {thinking of,anticipating}?
>
> I thin
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is
> constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily,
> maintainers of a package.
>
Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states
(8.3) "
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> Have you seen some mistakes that would help us (or at least me)
> understand which problems you're {thinking of,anticipating}?
I think the biggest problem isn't that the policy editors are maki
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 22:37:59 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too
> > bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the
> > policy editors. I would like to
Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too
> bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the
> policy editors. I would like to see the policy editors assess
> proposals not only for consensus
Ian Jackson (2014-01-03):
> I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too
> bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the
> policy editors. I would like to see the policy editors assess
> proposals not only for consensus and support, but also to consider
> pro
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> Policy Editors delegation
> =
...
> Task Description
>
>
> The Debian Policy team is responsible for maintaining and coordinating
> updates to the Debian Policy Manual and all the other pol
25 matches
Mail list logo
