Backporting #28838 to 3.6 branch

I did start a poll with the academics, and I could report about it at the next meeting.

As at most the TAC advises the boards, and as it takes some time to gather feedback from all our communities, you might just as well shot an email in your personal capacity, suggesting the back port.

@Nicola Tuveri with all my respect - it's a nonsense to ask community about it.

@Dmitry Belyavsky it is a valid opinion. But if you believe that, than what is exactly your ask to the C-TAC?

> How do I request this backport, is the vote implied?

The {C,F}-TAC cannot vote on mandating a backport, nor on allowing an exception.

It can vote on advising a backport or an exception, but can only do so based on the basis of feedback collected from our communities: the elections did not delegate us to take decisions on behalf of our communities, so the personal belief of each representative should not bias any vote they cast, other than being included among the opinionated feedback collected from our constituent communities.

We can only act as the proxy between communities and the boards of directors.

We can only act as the proxy between communities and the boards of directors.

@Nicola Tuveri Obviously not.
First, the communities are semi-dead (except the Committers)
Second, I believe that after being elected, we can raise issues without consultations with the community.

But I completely agree that we can vote for requesting the exception.

@Dmitry Belyavsky 

> First, the communities are semi-dead (except the Committers)

We as representatives have the responsibility of animating them!
I have been quite vocal on Committers being a weird---closed-club---community, that probably shouldn't be:
- It's a restricted group of individuals, with exceptional access to individual resources within the Corporation and Foundation
- Its members are incredibly "privileged" (literally, they have the superpower of committing directly to the source repo, and that thier approval/rejections on PR reviews are binding) compared to any other of our communities
- being an invite-only, small-number community also means that any individual entitled to be part of it has been manually added as a member of the community and receives updates and participates in votes: each one of the other communities has an infinitesimal potion of enrolled members, compared to the individuals that are entitled to be part of it, and the admins of this Loomio instance did not "forcibly" add anyone to any community but Committers.
- I have started doing more outreach to try and enroll more academics on Loomio, maybe you should think about writing to distro maintainer lists to advertise the existence of this platform and to motivate more people to join

> Second, I believe that after being elected, we can raise issues without consultations with the community.

Any individual, being or not elected as a representative, can raise issues within their community or directly to the boards.

But raising a "personal" (as in, I do not have an idea about what my community thinks about it, but I would like to propose a vote based on my belief) issue within the C-TAC forum is not really kosher, as you as a representative are allowed to post in this forum, but other distro maintainers are not, so in a way I think it would be a (mild and probably unintentional) abuse of power.


> raise issues without consultations with the community.

If our role is to represent our communities, with what title would you bring a personal opinion to the TAC without first engaging your community to validate your position as "your community" opinion rather than "your personal" opinion?

We are entitled to our personal, professional, expert opinions, and we can and should express them, given they count at least as one relevant opinion among the ones we should represent. But is singling them out, skipping any consultation, to escalate them directly for some action in the C-TAC restricted forum the right way to propose a technical change based on a personal opinion?

@beldmit
To clarify how the TAC (and by extension, the BAC) are meant to function:

1. Advisory Nature

TACs serve as advisory bodies to the boards. They do not approve, reject, or implement technical actions directly. Their strength lies in forming clear, representative recommendations that guide board decisions.

2. Representation and Legitimacy

Each TAC member participates as a representative of a community, not as an individual contributor.

Community input — whether through discussion threads, calls, or informal polling — is what gives TAC advice legitimacy and weight.

Without that grounding, a TAC position risks being interpreted as a personal opinion, not community guidance.

3. Process and Scope

The intended process is:
1. Engage the community relevant to the issue.

2. Bring summarized input to the TAC for discussion.

3. Formulate collective advice to the boards.

If a member wishes to raise a proposal in a personal capacity, that’s always welcome — but it should be done outside of the TAC advisory channel, for example by contacting the boards directly.

This structure ensures TAC discussions remain representative, transparent, and advisory, as designed.

This thread raises a valid technical topic but, in its current form, falls outside the TAC’s advisory scope.

The TAC’s role is to form community-grounded advice to the boards, not to decide on specific technical actions.

If you’d like to proceed with this proposal:
1. Please submit it directly to the boards as a personal suggestion.

2. Optionally, gather input from Committers or Distributions so it can later return to the TAC as a community-backed advisory item.

@Anton Arapov could you please clone this thread to Committers/Distributions community?

@beldmit I don't think you need an entire thread in the communities. It should be just the original question. The easiest way is to redo it.