Re: This does not have to be a GR
Hi Kurt
On 2023/11/22 01:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if
only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary for Debian
to issue such statement, and I am quite unconvinced the GR process is the best
option for the purpose of drafting such statement.
I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we never
did used the GR process for issuing a position statement.
The DPL could delegate to a group of people knowledgeable in EU law to draft
a statement that is congruent with the interest of Debian.
>
I'm not sure that the DPL has such authority, since it's a power
giving to the developers by way of GR.
I don't think that works, because then it could be argued that any
delegation's decisions can be overridden by a GR and has thenceforth
already been delegated. So, I believe it is possible to have such a
delegation.
Although, whether it would be a good idea is an entirely different issue.
I do think we should have a proper discussion about how we want to treat
comments on legislation (although not during this GR), because we've
refrained from doing so when it affects both free software and Debian in
other regions of the world.
I would also like to point out that, in the current state, on Saturday
the discussion period is over and a vote is automatically called.
While I think this could use more discussion, I'm not currently planning
on extending the discussion period for this vote unless there is
sufficient demand for it. If there's more than one person who still
wants to work on a proposal or if there's some aspect we need to explore
further, then it can be extended.
-Jonathan
PS:
While I didn't cite our constitution in this mail, I'm including a link
here for convenience, since I often refer to it myself when I want to
make sure whether I remember some detail correctly:
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
Reply to: