On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:32:06AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Le mercredi, 4 septembre 2019, 23.53:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > > *
Le vendredi, 6 septembre 2019, 11.32:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > Le mercredi, 4 septembre 2019, 23.53:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 4 septembre 2019, 23.53:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > * Most decisions are not just technical decisions, in many/most cases
> > >
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I have come to wonder if these two functions shouldn't be separated, in
> different bodies (eventually with different nomination rules, etc.). This
> "steering" question had also been phrased, slightly differently, by Mehdi,
Le mercredi, 4 septembre 2019, 23.53:06 h CEST Bill Allombert a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > * Most decisions are not just technical decisions, in many/most cases
> > >
> > > the decisions have answers that are all correct, but it just
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:04:57PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > * Most decisions are not just technical decisions, in many/most cases
> > the decisions have answers that are all correct, but it just depends
> > on the weight of specific trade-offs. How those are weighted depends
> >
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 06:45:35PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> * This is a body composed of members that come and go, these might have
> wide experience in Debian in general (although not necessarily) or
> might had expertise in specific fields. The problem is that this body
> gets
Thanks a lot Guillem for this message.
It's very timely as we just had a discussion around these issues during
DebConf19 in Curitiba, and many of the problems that we identified and
discussed matched what your were saying.
I think the TC needs to keep working on these issues and figure out
how
Hi!
Thanks for sending this out Ian, part of this matches exactly what I've
been thinking for a long time, and the reason for my continued public
opposition and deep dissatisfaction with the tech-ctte as a body. I've
mentioned in the past [P] I'd put my thoughts in a more structured form,
but I
Hey Sam,
Sorry it took us so long to get back to you on this.
Sean and Ian already had quite some interesting discussion on this
subject. And
we also talked about this issue during our monthly meeting in June [1].
The rough consensus from our discussion is that the technical committee
can
Hello Ian,
On Thu 16 May 2019 at 11:19am +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> My current strategy, when
>> - it seems like something is important and should be changed, but
>> - it has not yet been implemented in the archive, or
>> - in some other sense lacks a clear consensus,
>> is to refer the case
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> Hello Sam,
Sean> On Fri 10 May 2019 at 03:57PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> What are people's thoughts about this?
>>
>> Will this approach work for the TC and policy editors?
Sean> I think that the concrete suggestion you're
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Thinking about Delegating Decisions about Policy"):
> The idea that Policy should always lag behind practice is something that
> I find very difficult to assess. If you are thinking of Debian as a
> large number of people furiously innova
Hello Sam,
On Fri 10 May 2019 at 03:57PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> What are people's thoughts about this?
>
> Will this approach work for the TC and policy editors?
I think that the concrete suggestion you're making is that when a
question that comes before the T.C. is something that could be
Hello Ian,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 02:50PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> we delegated managing the process to the policy editors, but not the
>> actual policy decisions. They make consensus calls. They use their
>> judgment in a lot of ways.
>
> That is a decision *of* the policy editors. When the
Sam Hartman writes ("Thinking about Delegating Decisions about Policy"):
> Why the TC?
> A couple of reasons.
I'm going to go off on a rant about the TC now. I've been told that
this mail sounds like sour grapes but I think it's important.
I think it would be a bad idea to us
by encouraging the policy editors to amend the
policy process, and by giving them political cover as they change
their practice.
Sam Hartman writes ("Thinking about Delegating Decisions about Policy"):
> I imagine it won't be uncommon to get to a point where the right next
> st
Bill Allombert writes:
> In my view it is detrimental for the policy proces for the Debian policy
> to include decisions made by the TC, because this leads to a situation
> where some policy text is frozen because the policy editors cannot change
> it without potentially overriding the TC.
Then
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:57:52PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> In my platform, one of the things I focused on is trying to drive the
> decision process forward.
>
> I imagine it won't be uncommon to get to a point where the right next
> step is to develop technical or non-technical policy about
In my platform, one of the things I focused on is trying to drive the
decision process forward.
I imagine it won't be uncommon to get to a point where the right next
step is to develop technical or non-technical policy about something.
I'd like to focus in this message about what I as DPL do
20 matches
Mail list logo
