Ubuntu Backports charter

[Dan Streetman]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:34 PM Robie Basak <robie.basak at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 12:44:43PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > I see this charter as the one and only official document (except where
> > the charter specifically delegates to other document(s)) for guiding
> > what the team does and how the team does it. It supersedes any
> > previous discussion. Is that what you are asking?
>
> I'm asking to what extent you consider the previous discussion to have
> been incorporated into your current document, if at all.

The team has had previous discussions around governance, yes, and of
course those discussions played a part in forming this document. I
don't really know what exactly you mean by any/all discussions being
'incorporated' into the document?

>
> IMHO it's best if each team - including the backporters team - decides
> for themselves how they want to operate, and are free to change things
> as and when they want. To that extent, if the backporters team wants
> have a detailed document like the one you have written, then that's
> absolutely fine.
>
> But why are you looking for the TB to "ratify" it

So that the powers delegated to the team are explicitly stated and so
that the "main" rules are also explicitly stated (with "main" being
subjective, and decided by our team).

> and lock in the
> requirement that the TB must approve any changes? For example, you've
> said "This charter, and any changes to it, must be approved by the TB
> before taking effect" but also you've got minutiae in there such as
> which IRC channel is used and on what network. Won't causing the TB to
> "lock this in" be excessively beaurocratic? And what if you need a minor
> change? Are you expecting to go to the TB every time? Won't that be
> impractical?

Sorry, these questions seem subjective and rhetorical - I'm not sure
if you intend for our team to answer them? Do they need to be answered
for the TB to review and/or ratify this charter?

>
> In case it's not clear, I think what you're proposing is rather
> different from my suggestion. I was focusing on the team
> responsibilities only - very deliberately leaving *how* the team might
> choose to fulfil those responsibilities out of it.
>
> Robie