Re: Further draft Social Committee text
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:27:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> CHARTER OF THE SOCIAL COMMITTEE
Going back to this old thing... :) The bulk of the charter can be
promulgated by the developers through a GR, rather than just the leader,
so I'm looking at it from that aspect (and from the general aspect of
reviving the process...).
> 1. The Social Committee's purpose is to promote constructive and
> agreeable relations between Debian Developers and others involved
> with Debian.
This should also mention - documenting the social norms and procedures
that are used by developers and others to achieve the same purpose.
"Documenting" seems like a good way to avoid saying "deciding" there,
placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel ideas.
> 2. To this end the Social Committee may:
>
> (1) Make a decision when asked to do so.
>
> Any person or body may delegate a decision of their own, or a
> class of decisions, to the Social Committee, or seek advice from
> it.
This is a bit vague. The section Jurisdiction below doesn't explain the
default area of decisions put in front of soc-ctte, only the first paragraph
does. I'm assuming you mean that the first paragraph takes precedence over
everything...?
Anyway, if the former change to the first paragraph is accepted, then the
only part that's missing from my proposal was to say that it decides on
"general matters of organization within the Project". I'm not exactly sure
how that came about, but it can be left out, I guess.
> (2) Offer advice.
>
> The Social Committee may make formal announcements about its
> views on any matter. This includes but is not limited to both
> statements about particular cases and documents giving general
> guidance. (Individual members may of course make informal
> statements about their views and about the likely views of the
> committee.)
This should be split into two parts - one regarding views on particular
matters, and one regarding views on general matters, because that's
something that people might wish to amend.
> (3) Request Cease and Desist
That's a harsh way to call it :)
"Intervene in communication processes in matters of common interest"
> (4) Make Access Control Decisions
>
> Provided at least two thirds of the SC positively agree,
This limitation should be left for the Procedures section.
> instruct Debian's mailing list administrators, IRC operators,
> and other persons in similar positions
"the administrators of Debian's official communication forums" - to avoid
being overly specific.
> to make or remove access control arrangements which allow or prevent
> a person or persons from sending messages via communications
> facilities.
"to make or remove access control arrangements which allow or prevent a
person from pursuing a particular action that was previously a matter of
an aforementioned request to refrain"
This limits the soc-ctte actions to something for which there is precedent.
That should eliminate any fears that overly generic anti-abuse policies
would be imposed.
> Where the access-controlled resource is not one maintained for
> and by the project as a whole, but is instead a private resource
> (including private resources hosted on project systems), the
> Social Committee may only make requests rather than giving
> instructions.
I think this paragraph might be needless (it's fairly obvious).
> (5) Recommend suspension or expulsion from the Project
>
> Provided at least two thirds of the SC positively agree,
Again something for the Procedures section.
> (2) Send formal warnings
>
> A Committee member may send a formal warning to a person or
> group, giving that member's opinion, and such advice as the
> member sees fit.
I can't parse this sentence. :) How about:
"A Committee member may send a formal warning to a person or group,
giving their opinion or advice."
Also add "pursuant to SC's goals" (like in the former section which I didn't
quote). Also consider expanding the acronym in all cases.
> Such a formal warning from an individual SC member may be sent
> privately or publicly, but should be copied to the SC private
> mailing list.
Omit the latter part (both because all SC-related mail should be Cc:ed to
one of SC lists, and because it's a matter of procedure).
> PROCEDURE
>
> 6. The Social Committee will have a private mailing list for its use;
> this will be used for all formal business. Messages sent to this
> list will be available to the SC (including to future committees)
> but will not be published.
In the previous discussion I said, referring to the informal mails:
I think it's best that they still Cc: a second private alias, one kept in a
directory that is readable only to soc-ctte members. That will keep it out
of the general view and the view of thousands of developers, but there will
still be a clear record of it.
So, the word "formal" can be removed from the above paragraph.
(And the aforementioned supermajority requirements should be moved into this
section.)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: