From: Sam Hartman Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:09:26 +0000 (-0400) Subject: Add minutes for 2016-07-03 breakfast meeting X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=47269cc57b41accf23e461ba864f93b8b640aaeb;p=debian-ctte.git Add minutes for 2016-07-03 breakfast meeting --- diff --git a/meetings/20160703/minutes.txt b/meetings/20160703/minutes.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8eec37 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20160703/minutes.txt @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +Several members of the TC met after breakfast to discuss planning +tomorrow's BOF; discussions diverged into general TC issues. + +Present: +Didier Raboud +Andreas Barth +Philip Hands +Sam Hartman +Tollef Fog Heen +Keith Packard + + +Tomorrow, we want to focus on giving people time to comment. Didier +will send slides to the list for comment. Focus on what is the +TC--constitutional role, involvement for dispute resolution, discussion +of mediation. Discussion of open issues. + +Prompt open discussion of how to get new members, what we're looking for. + +action: Didier to send BOF slides to list. +---------------------------------------- + +We then discussed ways in which the TC could be improved. + +Sam expressed frustration that internal processes make it difficult to +get work done; frustration when email goes into a void. + +Philip talked about how it's very common to have 30 minutes of time. If +you can make a concrete step forward in that time, it's good. If you +can't, then you may have lost state and context by the time you get +back. + +We discussed when votes are needed and when action like Phil's closing +of the cross-tool-chain bug is appropriate. There was a reasonably +refined consensus of those present that votes aren't needed when actions +can be undone easily and don't involve exercise of constitutional power +like overriding a maintainer. + +Keith discussed similarity to the UI design consideration that having +easy ways to undo actions is better than a required confirmation step. + +We believe that making it clear in such actions that when a vote isn't +taken/people are guessing at consensus, the issue can be reopened. +Keith pointed out that's true of all bugs. Several thought it was +explicitly important to point out in these cases. + +There was consensus that we want to be sensitive to requests from TC +members and from involved outside parties requesting a vote in a +particular case. + + +We also discussed email handling. It sounds like we'd like to try and +read email within a week, and get reasonably fast turn around time for +comments. +As time progresses, the bar for objections should be raised--for +example, by two weeks the bar for raising an objection should be +significantly higher. + +Members discussed frustration when objections have been raised late in +the process (or after the process) in the past. + +we discussed that there is value in a community this small of sending +messages of the form "I read that; makes sense," rather than just +objections. There didn't seem to be a consensus on media. Some members +discussed IRC +1s, others pointed out that IRC was unreliable. There +was some concern that replies to email might clutter bugs and lists, but +people seemed to believe that was acceptable. +There was consensus in favor of such agreement being in public rather +than on the private list. + + +---------------------------------------- + +The committee discussed menu system policy. Part of the TC decision was +implemented in the policy NMU. However, another part has not yet been +implemented. Didier expressed frustration with the process. + +There was agreement of those present that if we have a patch +implementing the rest of the decision, we should be able to find a way +forward. Andreas said that the policy process has stalled and there is +a BOF later in the week to discuss. He said that as a policy maintainer +that if he had confidence a patch represented the TC decision, he would +feel comfortable committing that patch. + +action: Didier to figure out the state of the patch proposing to +implement the rest of the TC decision. + +action: Didier and Andreas to figure out a process for moving forward. + + +---------------------------------------- + +Didier noted that he's been approached by the DPL. The DPL would like +to produce a Debian Roadmap and believes the TC may have some role in +that process. +We started discussions of whether the TC might have a role, and +limitations of a road map. +There was agreement that we'd like to see a road map that facilitates +work rather than a road map that discourages developers from working on +things. The project should be what the DDs as a whole want; if the roap +map goes against that, it will be problematic. + +---------------------------------------- + +Please send any comments/additions/corrections to the list. I will +propose that we approve these minutes at our next IRC meeting, as well +as including an agenda slot for any additional discussion of topics from +the breakfast meeting, particularly any concerns from those who were not +there.