Differences between revisions 1 and 2
Revision 1 as of 2008-03-13 15:27:13
Size: 3357
Editor: ?marga
Comment: Adding page about the process for policy changes.
Revision 2 as of 2008-03-13 15:29:36
Size: 3357
Editor: ?marga
Comment: Fix the link
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 30: Line 30:
Each suggested change goes through different states. These states are denoted through usertags of the debian-policy@packages.debian.org user. Current list of bugs:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=debian-policy&users=debian-policy@packages.debian.org&ordering=policy&pend-exc=done
Each suggested change goes through different states. These states are denoted through usertags of the debian-policy@packages.debian.org user. [http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=debian-policy&users=debian-policy@packages.debian.org&ordering=policy&pend-exc=done Current list of bugs]

To introduce a change in the current DebianPolicy, the change proposal has to go through a certain process.

Change Goals

  • The change should be technically correct, and consistent with the rest of the policy document. This means no legislating the value of $\Pi$. This also means that the proposed solution be known to work; iterative design processes do not belong in policy.
  • The change should not be too disruptive; if very many packages become instantly buggy, then instead there should be a transition plan. Exceptions should be rare (only if the current state is really untenable), and probably blessed by the TC.
  • The change has to be reviewed in depth, in the open, where any one may contribute; a publicly accessible, archived, open mailing list.
  • Proposal should be addressed in a timely fashion.
  • Any domain experts should be consulted, since not every policy mailing list subscriber is an expert on everything, including policy maintainers.
  • The goal is rough consensus on the change, which should not be hard if the matter is technical. Technical issues where there is no agreement should be referred to the TC; non-technical issues should be referred to the whole developer body, and perhaps general resolutions lie down that path.
  • Package maintainers whose packages may be impacted should have access to policy change proposals, even if they do not subscribe to policy mailing lists (policy gazette?).

Possible States

Each suggested change goes through different states. These states are denoted through usertags of the debian-policy@packages.debian.org user. [http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=debian-policy&users=debian-policy@packages.debian.org&ordering=policy&pend-exc=done Current list of bugs]

State A: Issue raised

Detect need, like gaps/flaws in current policy, or a new rule should be added. Any user or developer may start this step. There is a decision point here, not all issues are in scope of policy. [TAG: issue]

State B: Discussion

Discuss remedy. Alternate proposals. Discussion guided by delegates. There should be a clear time limit to this stage. [TAG: discussion]

State C: Solicit advice [Optional]

Solicit domain expert input [TAG: opinion]

State D: Proposal

A final proposal has emerged from the discussion, and there is a rough consensus on how to proceed to resolve the issue. [TAG: proposal]

State E: Wording proposed

Close to a working solution. Create policy language, rationale, test, and publish. [TAG: wording]

State F: Seconded

The proposal is signed off on by N developers, N=3? (stages D and E may be reversed) Final discussions start; input from affected developers. [TAG: seconded]

State G: Accepted

Change accepted, will be in next upload. [TAG: accepted]

State H: Reject

Rejected proposals. [TAG: rejected]

These can be one of:

  • H1: dubious
    • Not a policy matter [TAG: dubious]
  • H2: Ctte
    • Referred to TC [TAG: ctte]
  • H3: Devel
    • Referred to developer body [TAG: devel]
  • H4: Delegate
    • Rejected by delegates (sent by default to TC) [TAG: delegate]
  • H5: Timeout
    • Timed out, no policy created. [TAG: obsolete]


CategoryDebianDevelopment