Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:47:00 -0700, Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>> My take on this is that we do not have a problem: at least, none that
>> this GR is addressing. I am of the camp that believe that the only
>> power people have in any capacity in Debian flows from the
>> constitution; which means either the powers listed for developers, or
>> as delegates of the DPL. Recent delegation activity seems to bear
>> this out.
>> We have had full members added to the FTP team, to the DAM, and I
>> don't think we had issues with any other tesm refusing to accept
> I'll feel better if we also see evidence of resolution of the problems
> with keyring-maint, but I'm feeling cautiously optimistic right now.
> It's been wonderful to see Joerg's flurry of activity.
Hey, give the man time. I have not yet had time to fill out his
review; I am sure all this activity is not for naught. What bothers me
about all this is that we had a nicely detaled document that spells out
who has what rights, and it seems fairly clear to me that all powers in
Debian stem from the powers laid down there; but that nicely detailed
document is not enough.
What makes one thing that any non-supermajority GR which says
essentially the same thing as the constitution will have any weight?
Are people who were grandfathered by the constitution (or some
such equally silly argument) not also grandfathered by this forthcoming
GR? What changes?
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." Rick Obidiah
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C