Bug#990426: www.debian.org: Clarify status of list of old TC decisions

2021-07-26 Thread Calum McConnell 
On Thu, 2021-07-08 at 18:08 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu 08 Jul 2021 at 09:12AM +02, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > -NB that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are not yet
> > > -recorded here.
> > > +NB that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are yet
> > > recorded
> > > +here yet.
> > 
> > That wording doesn't seem correct for me. Maybe:
> > « Note that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are
> > recorded
> > here. »
> > or
> > « Note that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 have not been
> > recorded here. »
> 
> There should not be two 'yet's, indeed.  Thanks.
> 
> > >  Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions
> > > 
> > > @@ -337,8 +337,8 @@ recorded here.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -NB that decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are not
> > > yet
> > > -recorded here.
> > > +NB that no decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are
> > > recorded here
> > > +yet.
> 
> This one doesn't have the same problem and I think is fine.
> 

I think I understand Raphael's point: the wording felt a bit awkward to me
as well on a first read.  The "no" should go with the verb, not the
subject, and it's a mile away.  Plus, I think there's tense weirdness
going on with the 'yet' as well: 'yet' indicates past actions, and 'are'
indicates the present tense.  

It should probably be:

+NB that all decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 have yet to
be recorded here   

Alternatively, since I think you're trying specifically to remove the "not
yet" in the original, try just getting rid of the 'yet': it doesn't add
much.

+NB that no decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 have been
recorded here 

Or, (and this is the option I personally will be taking), simply ignore
this tiny bit of subjectively awkward english, stop being overly pedantic
about a tiny phrase that doesn't matter, thank the person adding a much
needed note to an out of date page, and take a nap while contemplating the
silliness of language.

Looking forward to his nap,
Calum M


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#990426: www.debian.org: Clarify status of list of old TC decisions

2021-07-08 Thread Sean Whitton 
Hello,

On Thu 08 Jul 2021 at 09:12AM +02, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> -NB that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are not yet
>> -recorded here.
>> +NB that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are yet recorded
>> +here yet.
>
> That wording doesn't seem correct for me. Maybe:
> « Note that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are recorded
> here. »
> or
> « Note that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 have not been
> recorded here. »

There should not be two 'yet's, indeed.  Thanks.

>>  Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions
>>
>> @@ -337,8 +337,8 @@ recorded here.
>>
>>  
>>
>> -NB that decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are not yet
>> -recorded here.
>> +NB that no decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are recorded 
>> here
>> +yet.

This one doesn't have the same problem and I think is fine.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#990426: www.debian.org: Clarify status of list of old TC decisions

2021-07-08 Thread Raphael Hertzog 
Hi,

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Sean Whitton wrote:
> -NB that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are not yet
> -recorded here.
> +NB that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are yet recorded
> +here yet.

That wording doesn't seem correct for me. Maybe:
« Note that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are recorded
here. »
or 
« Note that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 have not been
recorded here. »

>  Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions
>  
> @@ -337,8 +337,8 @@ recorded here.
>  
>  
>  
> -NB that decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are not yet
> -recorded here.
> +NB that no decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are recorded 
> here
> +yet.

Same here.

Cheers,
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#990426: www.debian.org: Clarify status of list of old TC decisions

2021-06-28 Thread Sean Whitton 
Package: www.debian.org
Tags: patch
X-debbugs-cc: debian-c...@lists.debian.org

Dear webmasters,

At a recent TC meeting[1] it was noted that the list of decisions on the
TC page on the Debian website is quite out-of-date -- for example,
appointing new members is done using our official decision-making
process, but none of the decision processes leading to the appointments
of any of the sitting members of the committee are listed :)

Our view is that while the BTS records of discussions and decisions are
the source of truth, it is valuable to have the website page too, as
it's quite interesting for anyone interested in Debian history.  We also
thought that it is not a problem if it doesn't get kept up-to-date until
someone gets around to it.

However, we thought it would be best if some text on the page linked to
the BTS archives, and notes that the www page is often out-of-date.
There is some language to this effect already but it is only attached to
one section of the page and does not clearly state that the BTS is the
official record.  So I would like to propose the attached patch.

Thanks!

[1]  
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2021/debian-ctte.2021-05-12-18.00.log.html

-- 
Sean Whitton
From 4e667d4efa461770e83c842bcd737380616c934e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Whitton 
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:53:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Be explicit that source of truth for TC activities is the BTS

See minutes of TC meeting on 12th May 2021 for discussion:

---
 english/devel/tech-ctte.wml | 22 +++---
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/english/devel/tech-ctte.wml b/english/devel/tech-ctte.wml
index 6e672da1626..f619bcf3be6 100644
--- a/english/devel/tech-ctte.wml
+++ b/english/devel/tech-ctte.wml
@@ -100,8 +100,13 @@ Debian Organizational Structure page.
 The https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/;>committee mailing list
 is archived.
 
-https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=tech-ctte;>Questions pending decision
-can be reviewed in the bug tracking system.
+The official record of both discussions and decisions is the bug tracking
+system: you can view https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=tech-ctte;>questions
+pending decision and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=tech-ctte;archive=yes;>archived
+discussions and decisions.  The lists of decisions further down this page
+is often out-of-date and are maintained primarily for historical interest.
 
 VCS repository
 
@@ -112,11 +117,6 @@ for collaboration.
 
 Formal technical decisions, including recommendations and advice
 
- The decision history sections are not necessarily up to date.
-  (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=tech-ctte;archive=yes;>Older
-  questions and decisions can be viewed in the bug tracking
-  system.)
-
 
   https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg1.html;>2019-03-05
 https://bugs.debian.org/914897;>Bug #914897:The
@@ -293,8 +293,8 @@ inclusion of code to create isdn devices by isdnutils.
 Manoj; no-one else voted and Ian used his casting vote.
 
 
-NB that decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are not yet
-recorded here.
+NB that no decisions from before the 1st of April 2002 are yet recorded
+here yet.
 
 Formal nontechnical and procedural decisions
 
@@ -337,8 +337,8 @@ recorded here.
 
 
 
-NB that decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are not yet
-recorded here.
+NB that no decisions from before the 31st of January 2002 are recorded here
+yet.
 
 Retired members
 
-- 
2.30.2



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature