On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 04:48:01PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which of the groups/people on [1] do you consider delegates? Why or why not?
Formally speaking, I guess only two are. The Release Manager, and the
Hardware Donations Manager.
Martin can probably tell us if he's made other delegations on that page.
> Would you change this?
Yes, as I stated in my platform[2]:
We need to respect the delegate process, or amend it. I don't think
every "particular task" in the Project is the same as maintaining a
package. The roles of archive administrator, project keyring
maintainer, and project system administrator are important. In
practice, we distinguish these roles from that of package maintainer
in many ways. They are of particular importance and merit special
attention. I do not think they can reasonably be lumped into the same
category as the individual package maintainer. They have special
powers and should be treated specially. The concept of the delegate in
the Constitution was drafted with such roles in mind. That no previous
DPL as taken the obvious step is a disappointment to me.
[...]
I will take the obvious step described in the previous section, and
formalize the delegate status of the many important people who do
critical work for our project who do not already enjoy delegate
status. In the event I cannot do so, or am persuaded that this is a
bad idea, I will explain to the entire project why I cannot, and then,
if necessary, propose a General Resolution amending our Constitution
to reflect the facts of Debian's organization.
I think the following roles should be formally delegated:
FTP Archives
Release Manager
Release Manager for "stable"
Bug Tracking System
Mailing Lists Administration
Mailing Lists Archives
New Maintainers Front Desk
Developer Accounts Managers
Keyring Maintainers
Security Team [3]
Web Pages [3]
System Administration
LDAP Developer Directory Administrator
DNS Maintainer (hostmaster)
Hardware Donations Coordinator
Accountant
It's possible some of the above roles should be condensed into one.
> Do you believe the Tech Committee is effective in its role for the
> project?
I suspect not; as I stated in my platform[2]:
I will reactivate the Technical Committee -- which has fallen dormant
again -- or amend the Constitution to replace it with a body that
works better. That almost a year has gone by with no mail to the list
(apart from a test message by Wichert Akkerman), let alone a dispute
to resolve, makes me suspect that this body has lost the confidence of
the developers. I'd like to work with the members of the Committee
that are still interested in serving to see how this body can be
improved and revitalized.
> [1]: http://www.debian.org/intro/organization
[2] http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/campaign/2004/platform.xhtml
[3] It's probably only necessary to delegate a "head", who then has
authority to appoint other members, much as the current Release
Manager has appointed deputies.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your
branden@debian.org | choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature