From: tille@debian.org   
      
   Dear Debian community,   
      
   This is bits from the DPL for November.   
      
      
   Future of the DFSG Team   
   =======================   
      
   Over the past weeks, there has been promising progress in the   
   development of the new DFSG team.  New contributors are stepping   
   forward, learning the workflows, and taking on tasks that will   
   strengthen the long-term resilience of NEW processing. This fresh   
   activity is very welcome, and I am grateful to everyone who has   
   volunteered their time to move things forward.   
      
   At the same time, I want to acknowledge the extensive and often   
   demanding work done by the current team members over many years. My aim   
   is to support a handover that recognises their contributions while   
   ensuring that the newcomers can take on responsibilities with confidence   
   and autonomy.   
      
   Looking ahead, there is also an opportunity for the new DFSG team to   
   shape Debian's future in ways we may not yet fully anticipate. Beyond   
   addressing the immediate workload, fresh perspectives can open doors to   
   improvements and ideas that go beyond the purely operational -- and I   
   trust the new team to explore such possibilities as they grow into their   
   role.   
      
      
   I have sensed some urgent questions inside the community, so I will try   
   to address these here.   
      
   Questions & Answers   
   -------------------   
      
   Q1: Why is there a discussion about changing the way NEW processing works?   
      
   Over the past two years, I have heard clear feedback from the project   
   that the predictability and transparency of NEW processing needs   
   improvement. This is not primarily about the number of packages   
   processed, but about whether contributors can understand what to expect.   
   When a package remains in NEW for a week or a year, the reasons should   
   be traceable and visible to everyone.   
      
      
   Q2: What was the issue with transparency?   
      
   For many years, the internal workflow around NEW processing has been   
   hard for contributors to observe or understand. Debian relies on   
   transparent processes, shared expectations, and predictable behavior.   
   Many maintainers expressed frustration that the NEW queue felt opaque,   
   and that it was difficult to follow how decisions were made.   
      
      
   Q3: Why did you choose to split responsibilities into two teams?   
      
   A suggestion was made to separate DFSG review work from archive   
   operations. I considered this a good opportunity to reform the workflow   
   to accept new packages while ensuring continuity in crucial operations.   
   The aim was to create clear boundaries:   
      
    * Archive Operations continues with its established routines,   
    * DFSG review becomes a dedicated, separate and transparent process.   
      
      
   Q4: Does the restructuring affect the Archive Operations Team?   
      
   No.   
   Archive maintenance and release work require deep experience, and the   
   current Archive Operations Team has been carrying out these tasks   
   reliably, even during an emotionally difficult period. As long as they   
   wish to continue, I have no intention to change this team.   
      
   I want to explicitly thank them for their work -- including the smooth   
   execution of the latest point release.   
      
      
   Q5: What is the goal of creating a separate DFSG Team?   
      
   The separation creates room for a structured transition in DFSG   
   responsibilities. One possible outcome is a full rotation of the DFSG   
   team. Whether this will happen depends entirely on whether the new team   
   feels ready and confident. I will not make such a decision without their   
   agreement, but I want to encourage them to grow into the role.   
      
   My aim is for the next DPL to inherit a stable structure rather than a   
   turbulent one, which means the transition should not be delayed   
   unnecessarily. To provide predictability for everyone involved, my   
   current working assumption is that the new DFSG team can be ready to   
   take over primary responsibility toward the end of the year, followed by   
   a short handover period. This is not a fixed deadline, but it reflects   
   the timeframe I believe is realistic and desirable for a smooth   
   transition.   
      
      
   Q6: What are the new DFSG team candidates doing today?   
      
   The candidates are currently training by evaluating packages that are in   
   NEW. They are doing this without direct access to the NEW queue, which   
   is not ideal, but they are making steady progress.   
      
   In parallel, they are exploring options for improving NEW processing   
   itself. Their engagement and willingness to learn are essential for   
   building a more predictable and transparent workflow.   
      
   The new candidates have also begun publishing weekly public reports that   
   show what they reviewed, how decisions were reached, and where   
   improvements are being tested. These reports are an important part of   
   establishing the visible, predictable decision-making process that many   
   in the community have asked for.   
      
      
   Q7: How has the former FTPMaster team reacted?   
      
   The process has been difficult for many long-term members, which is   
   understandable when roles that people have held for decades change. I   
   have kept them informed promptly, sharing all relevant documents. The lack of   
   active feedback has made the right timing hard to judge, but the decision to   
   move forward is now taken.   
      
      
   Q8: Is the restructuring meant as criticism of the former team?   
      
   No.   
   Debian owes a great deal to the longstanding contributors dealing with   
   NEW processing, archive maintenance, and DAK development. Their work has   
   been essential for the project's stability.   
      
   This restructuring is not a judgment on past contributions. It is an   
   attempt to create a sustainable and transparent structure for the   
   future.   
      
   All previous DFSG delegates are explicitly invited to stay on in an   
   emeritus/advisory capacity and will be consulted on difficult cases   
   during the transition.  The role of DFSG Wizard comes to mind.   
      
      
   Q9: Would mixing old and new contributors inside the DFSG team be an option?   
      
   Past experience in Debian has shown that structural transitions work best   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)