1 <!doctype debiandoc public "-//DebianDoc//DTD DebianDoc//EN">
5 <title>PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy documents</title>
7 <name>Manoj Srivastava</name>
8 <email>srivasta@debian.org</email>
10 <version>Version $Revision: 1.2 $</version>
13 This document is copyright 1998 Manoj Srivastava. Anyone is
14 given permission to distribute this under the Freee software
15 foundations General Public Licence, Version 2, or any later
16 version, at your convenience.
21 <heading>Introduction, and adminstrivia</heading>
23 This is a proposal for creating a process through which the
24 Debian Policy documents are to be maintained and updated, it
25 sets forth the processes, and also calls for the creation of a
26 team responsible for the task of updating policy, however,
27 this team does not act as author or editor of Policy it self,
28 that is the task of the Debian Policy mailing list.
30 <p>A copy of this document should also be found at <url
31 id="http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/proposal.html"></p>
33 <heading>Deadline for tabling the discussion</heading>
35 I decided to use the suggested "usual" period of two weeks
36 for this proposal. Therefore, this proposal needs to be
37 acted upon before August the 22nd, 1998.
41 <heading>People Seconding the proposal</heading>
43 Well, since Michael Alan Dorman and Richard Braakman have
44 volunteered to serve on the policy maintainer team, I think
45 they have no objection to being seconds.<enumlist>
47 <p>Michael Alan Dorman <email>mdorman@debian.org</email></p>
50 <p>Richard Braakman <email>dark@xs4all.nl</email></p>
57 <heading>Archives and personnel</heading>
59 <heading>The policy maintainers team</heading>
61 I propose we select/install a group of people who have
62 access to the CVS repository for the Policy documents;
63 however, this set of people behave more like maintainers
64 rather than authors/editors. This group does not create
65 policy, not does it excersice editorial control, Policy is
66 decided "upstream". The group that decides on policy should
67 be the group of developers on the Debian-policy mailing
68 lists, which is how it was always done; so the group of
69 policy maintainers have no real power over policy. Since
70 they would have access to the CVS repository I guess it is
71 desirable that the people so appointed be ``mature'',
72 however that is determined.
75 I think that since the policy maintainers have no special
76 powers, there is no need to restrict their participation in
77 the discussion. We do need to have at least 4-5 people on
78 the job, preferably closer to 8, so that policy does not
79 languish when any maintainer goes missing (we do need
80 vacations, you know, once in a while), and since little
81 creative power is vested in the maintainers, we do not need
82 a central control. And the archives of the list can be used
83 as a record of the action decided upon even if all
84 maintainers are away at some time.
88 <heading>The CVS Repository</heading>
90 There should be a repository set up on
91 <tt>cvs.debian.org</tt> for this, with the people on the
92 policy maintainer team having write access to it.
95 The repository should contain all the packages under the
96 control of the team, and also should have anrea where the
97 weekly status document is kep; once the document is under
98 CVS, it should be a simple matter to script exporting the
99 document out to a place where the web server can serve it,
100 as well as create the weekly posting to
101 <tt>debian-poilcy</tt> and <tt>debian-devel</tt> mailing
102 lists. This document could also be kept under CVS then.</p>
106 <heading>Procedures and processes</heading>
108 <heading>Proposing amendments to the Policy</heading>
110 Unlike before, when the policy editor gathered in issues
111 which, in his view, were candidates for inclusion in policy,
112 I propose that issues are brought up in the policy group,
113 and, if the initial discussion warrants it, any developer,
114 with at least two(?) seconds can formally propose as a
118 The rationale behind the requirement for senconders is that
122 Encourage people to test the waters on the policy
123 mailing list, and this could help create an proposal
124 with a better chance of success</p>
128 Prevent frivoulous or ill concieved proposals from
129 wasting peoples time (If the proposal does not even
130 convince two developers, surely this is not ready for
131 inclusion in Policy?)</p>
136 <heading>Notifications and status reports</heading>
138 Periodically, possibly weekly, a summary of current policy
139 topics can be posted to the Developers mailing list, as
140 well as to the policy mailing list. The list of topics
141 should be posted on the web as well.</p>
143 If the current topic list is kept in CVS, then a simple
144 script could handle both the tasks, and all the
145 maintainers need do is keep the CVS repository up do
146 date. If the Bug tracking system is used, this may be
147 semi-automated too.</p>
149 Amendments to policy that have been accepted by the policy
150 group shall also be part of the notification.</p>
154 <heading>Deadlines for tabling discussions</heading>
156 It has been observed in the past that discussions on the
157 mailing list devolve into endless arguments. In order to get
158 away from the debating society aspect, at the time of the
159 formal proposal,a deadline can be set (probably by the
160 proposer, since they are likely to have an idea how
161 contentious the discussion is likely to be) for ending
162 discussion on the issue, which should rarely be less than 10
163 days, and typically two weeks or so. I hope that a hard
164 minimum period need not be set, and that the proposers would
165 be reasonable, and not set too short or too long a time for
169 If a consensus is reached by the policy group, then the
170 maintianers shall enter the amendment into the Policy
171 document, announce the inclusion in the periodic report, and
172 release a new version.</p>
174 <heading>Extensions to deadlines?</heading>
176 If a deadline is approaching, and the discussion s almost
177 concluded (in other words, it has not reached an impasse),
178 and the consensus on the policy group is that an extension
179 of a week would resolve the issues better, a one-time
180 extention could be granted. Care should be taken in
181 exercising this option, since abusing this would merely
182 postpone closures. </p>
186 <heading>Deadlock resolution</heading>
188 Formerly, arriving at a consensus was the only way to amend
189 Policy. That worked well when the Project was small,
190 however, we have aparently grown out of that phase, and even
191 the policy mailing list has grown more fractious than in the
192 days of yore. We now need a formal process of deadlock
193 resolution, and we need to recognize that on non-technical
194 issues a small minority should not always hold up deployment
197 If a consensus is not reached, (or if someone submits a
198 formal objection to the proposal) and the end of the
199 discussion period is near, then one is faced with a dilemma.
202 <heading>Impasse on technical issues</heading>
204 On technical issues, popularity is a bad way of arriving
205 at conclusions. Hopefully, the policy group would arrive
206 at a consensus on their own. If that fails to happen, or
207 if there is a formal objection raised on the issue, and
208 the issue is a technical one, then the technical committee
209 may be consulted. This should be a rare occurrence. </p>
212 <heading>Non technical and subjective disagreements</heading>
214 However, if the issue is non-technical and subjective,
215 then a vote of the developers may be taken (USENET voting
216 software should be available all over the place, right?);
217 and a super-majority of 75% is needed to carry the
218 amendment through. Failing the super-majority, the issue
219 should be shelved. It may be re-submitted as a a fresh
220 proposal after a suitable cooling off period (which should
221 be no less than a month, typically three months being
222 desirable, unless there are significant new
223 developments). (Demote bug, if the BTS is being used)</p>
227 <heading>Using the bug tracking system</heading>
229 A fascinating sub proposal has been that we use the bug
230 tracking system to track policy amendments in progress. If
231 this is used, we may intiate discussions in the policy group
232 by filing wish-list bugs (note: this should be open to
235 Formal proposals should be treated as normal bugs, and after
236 the discussion period are either closed (when incorporated
237 in policy, or roundly rejected as undesirable), or are
238 demoted to (forwarded?) wish list bugs. I like them being
239 demoted to forwarded status, since the upstream authors (the
240 policy mailing list) has already had a stab at them, and
241 they have been shelved until furhter notice. </p>
243 I think that the Policy is critical enough for the project
244 that any real flaws in the policy be automatically be deemed
245 important bugs, unless they affect release management.</p>