>> I would presumably put something like: >> * Release Team members decide on the release goals for stable releases > I think that a delegation would need to be a bit more specific in > defining what "release goals" are, and what it means to have a goal > labelled as "release goal". At least for me, the current definition of > "release goal" is rather unclear.
It does sound to me like you two are discussing two things: - There are project-wide changes to be done and someone needs to take a decision to do them to adjust some of our common rules to make them easier to do. Lets name them "technical project goals" - There are project-wide changes to be done that should be done in time for a certain release and someone needs to decide which of those are for which release, and to probably adjust some of our common rules even more. Ie. release-goals. I think the second one is more than sure a part of the release teams call. The first was with RT in the past, and it seems Lucas wants to move that elsewhere. I don't really see a problem in that - $someone decides on "technical project goals", whatever they are. And RT can decide that they should be for the next release. Or the one after. Setting a timeline until when its done. Additionally, the RT can (in whatever ways) come up with more release-goals, say "gcc must be version 42.0815 for jessie". Though I don't see why it needs a split now - has the RT done such a bad job with the goals? -- bye, Joerg The sun? That’s the hottest place on Earth. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo105hiv....@gkar.ganneff.de