Re: Call for votes: Bug#535645: Wrongful removal of ia32-libs-tools

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 09:32:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I haven't really been following this, but I don't think the ctte has
> > the power to override a delegate, and last I heard ftp-master was a
> > delegation.
> 
> My reading that it does, but only in the case where a delegate is
> implementing a technical policy or decision.

I wasn't sure that allowing a package in the archive is a "technical
policy".   But you do have technical reasons why you don't want
it.  And you can argue that it doesn't meet the "must not be so
buggy that we refuse to support it" part that allows it in the
archive.

I guess my problem is that the wording seems to indicate this
is under 6.1.4, while you think this is under 6.1.1.

> 6.1.1 empowers the CTTE to make any technical decision, but 6.1.4
> modifies that to require a 3:1 majority when the decision has already
> been made. Furthermore, if 6.1.4 doesn't apply to technical decisions
> of a delegate, than only 6.1.1 applies, and only a simple majority is
> needed.
> 
> For example, the policy editors are currently delegated, but 6.1.1
> speaks specifically to policy. In a case where we were going to
> override the policy editors, I think 6.1.4 and 6.1.1 should both
> apply, but I'm certain that 6.1.1 does.

As I understand it, policy is not made by the delegates, it's DDs
that make proposals and approve it, and the delegates are just
there to help the process.

But I think 6.1.1 and 6.1.4 are different things, and 6.1.4 does
not extend/modify 6.1.1.  Changes to policy would fall under
6.1.1 and not 6.1.4.

But I guess this is getting a little off topic for here, and is
something we'll deal with when that happens.


Kurt