On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:27 PM Robie Basak <robie.ba...@ubuntu.com> 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 -- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
