Meet the technical committee notes ---------------------------------- If we have options that we want to vote on, the DPL has the power to push this to happen very quickly. But we should have the options first. Many times problems are more social than technical. The TC is seen as a nuclear option. Going through the process is too stressful It's hard to get a resolution without bad feelings. A mediation role is missing, before the TC gets involved. Idea: someone in a discussion could flag the discussion to a TC member, so that they start following the discussion and gathering the information in case it goes to the TC. This would allow the TC to be involved earlier in a softer basis. When it comes to decision time, the person that was involved can present the idea Is this appropriate? Is it working around the rules? Q: Why are you in the TC and what do you expect to do? What reasons would you have for leaving? What are the patterns that need to be broken? h01ger thinks the tc has done a good job in the last year, including declinging many questions. i also agree with gwolf that sometimes being the annoying last resort is unavoidable. personally i rather defer bugs to the release team, or policy, or ftp, than tc. also i dont see them as the nuclear option (that would be a GR IMO), but rather as a very big hammer (bittin on behalf of h01ger) Disagreements tend to arise from uncoordinated changes impacting others. Can we have better processes for such changes (like we do have for library transitions)? (Helmut) -> In general we try to take this into account when making decisions, although of course we can make mistakes. -> It might make sense to have this top of mind when dealing with decisions close to a freeze. What would TC 2.0 look like? We might be able to learn from the Release Team? But the Release Team contributes something huge to Debian and so they are very respected. Also, it's usually easier to understand how decisions are made. Ideas: have a private mediation with the TC, if the parties agree. Ideas: give a small present to people that get overruled Gio (out of time): it seems to me that tech-ctte is actually mostly dealing with human matters. I would guess that a tech-ctte member spends 80% of their tech-ctte time on dealing with human issues and the rest on actual technical things. Is this true? If so, maybe the constitutional description and "cultural" perception of the tech-ctte is not quite correct, which might give more ground for distrust in the tech-ctte. Also, if I am correct, maybe the tech-ctte members should focus on the fact that the kind of skills they need to sit in the tech-ctte are not (mostly) technical, but rather social. Do they feeld they have the appropriate formation for this? If not, could they get it, for example at the expense of the project? I think those money would be well spent. On top of that, I agree with gwolf on the fact that to some extent the tech-ctte must accept its role being at least somewhat controversial. There is no way around that: controversies just exist, they're part of the human nature. The ideal world depicted by marga is not the one in which we happen to live, for reasons that are probably rooted in the evolution of our species. We should not be afraid of that, because that is what lead us here as a species. But I understand that it can discomforting at times, and maybe I can now close my motivational speech. BTW, thanks for your work! nodens (out of time): about making the TC not a mythical monster to be feared, but a team to be trust, maybe some more communication like "bits from the TC" from time to time? this way it's not just about decisions, ruling, etc. Well apparently gio is currently writing something similar :) gregoa (after the BoF): if the tech-ctte, as Ian said, deals with social issues (conflicting interests, …) maybe it's more a social committee than a technical committee? if the tech-ctte or members should "mediate" maybe there is less of a technical disagreement and more a social problem? in a utopian debian (Marga) people with technical disagreements wouldn't go the the TC but instead resolve the issue themselves or ask domain experts. IOW: in a utopian debian the TC wouldn't be needed. or: when people come to the TC it's not only/primarily about technical questions (anymore). we have TC and CT - maybe they should be merged? or the CT folded into the CT? CTTE - Community and Technology Team Experts Ideas collected after the talk: * Remove the TC from the constitution, make it a delegated body just like all the others. * Remove the requirement to do conversations in the open (requires constitution change). * Have non-binding conversations in private (may not require constitution change). * Advertise that people can come to the TC to ask for advice in private, if they prefer to do that instead of a proper escalation.