[dpl-helpers] draft release team delegation

[Neil McGovern]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 06:49:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I don't feel very strongly about this, but:
> 1) I would prefer to delegate all RM + RA, as my undestanding of the
> RT's inner workings is that RA use the delegated powers directly,
> without necessarily consulting with the RM.
> 2) For documentation purposes, I think that it's useful to state who is
> RM/SRM/RA in the delegation email. However, it's true that this could be
> left out of the official part. Doing that in the updated draft below.
> 

Well, I don't feel particularly strongly either :)

> > > The Release Team oversees and manages the releases of the testing,
> > > stable, and oldstable distributions (aka suites).
> > > 
> > [...]
> > > by deciding with issues are release-critical (RC)
> > *which
> > 
> > It's also missing a few areas:
> > 1) Allowing important severities to be set for release goals, or other
> > items.
> 
> I don't think that this is necessary, both because the release goals
> process is in an unclear state, and because severity=important is just a
> tag (there are no consequences).
> 

*shrug*, I don't particularly care either way - it's up to the RT if
they want it now :)

> > 2) Setting the NMU delay policy
> 
> I don't think that this should be part of the release team's delegated
> powers. I feel that the NMU procedures are already open enough, as I
> argued in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/12/msg00011.html .
> Could you follow-up in that thread, maybe?
> 

It has, however, been so, see dev-ref 5.11.1 and #625449, particularly
message 90. I know you don't agree with this, but if you wish to
essentially remove the current practice, then I think that this needs
much more explicit statement in the mail.

Perhaps something like:
Note - this does not include the practice that the release team may set
rules for NMU delays. Instead, this will be handled by [dev-ref
maintainers/policy/ftp-masters/someone else].

Personally though, I would oppose the removal of this de-facto state.

> > 3) Defining what consititutes a Debian release beyond the suites - eg:
> > ability to say that "x is the official Debian Live CD image"
> 
> Good point.
> 
> I propose adding:
>  * Release Team members have the final say on the official material
>    for each release (e.g., they decide which CD images are official
>    ones).
> 

Sounds good :)

Neil
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dpl-helpers/attachments/20131212/f96bbb41/attachment.sig>