Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns <email@example.com> said:
>> > What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
>> > taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
>> > their own opinion without any obligation to consult each other, or
>> > the developers as a whole. I'm not willing to have delegations exist
>> > in that way.
>> Can you cite any instance that his has actually happened?
> Yes, you claimed that you didn't need any review because you were a
> delegate on IRC.
I think that basing a decision with the DPL hat on just on what someone
says on IRC is a bad idea. And of course you've been told multiple
times that this didn't mean "no public review", but instead "no review
through the normal review process".
> I'm not willing to let a delegation stand while if it's being used as
> a justification to not talk to other people; even if that's happening
> only hypothetically.
You were acting in anger. You did not wait and talk with your delegate
again the other day. I think a leader should not act in anger, but
should take the time for talking.
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)