I'm not replying to Mohammed as unfortunately I'm missing at least a few steps in his argumentation. Steve Langasek wrote: > Interpretation of resolutions is best left to those who are expected to > implement them. I'd agree when it goes to implementation details. However, my request is more on a procedural issue, a "point of order" if you like. Andreas Barth wrote: > On which constitutional rules? On the one that all project members are expected to respect the result of a General Resolution. > The secretary can interpret the constitution as necessary, and around > firstname.lastname@example.org we agreed that according to the > constitution the DPL or the delegates are the ones to make the > decisions. Eh? I see a discussion there between a limited number of people. I don't see any general agreement there. In fact, it is exactly that discussion and the continued insistence of the RT that they have the right to make this decision that prompted this formal request. > The DPL has delegated an ongoing tasks to the Release Team. Of course > the DPL could withdraw the ongoing delegation for the future, but > according to constitution 5.1.1 the DPL may not revoke any decision done > by the Release Team. The question is whether the RT was right to make that decision in the first place, given a pre-existing explicit decision by the project as a whole that seems to contradict that. If you want to escalate a single issue that far, that's fine by me. But I'd hope that a ruling by the DPL and/or acting Secretary on this would get a more reasonable response from the RT. My suggestion would be to leave it to the DPL and acting Secretary themselves to decide whether or not they (jointly or separately) are qualified to express some opinion on this. Cheers, FJP
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.