On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole > > Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of > > being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single > > person doesn't feel comfortable with me. > > I understand this argument, but the DPL is not a random single person in > Debian, he/she is someone elected by project members. I therefore don't > buy that allowing the DPL to change the CoC will diminish in any way the > communicative strength of the CoC. > I know, but I didn't use the word "random" :) I think I disagree though that the weight of the CoC is unaffected by the ability of one person to change it - the project as a whole has chosen to endorse (or not, depending on the outcome of the vote) the CoC, rather than endorsing its current state, and allowing the DPL to change it. Similarly to a foundation document, or the diversity statement, it's a position of the project. > Also consider that if a DPL (or delegates) try to change the CoC in a > way which is not to the liking of many in the project, we do have the > ability to override that decision. And that's not theoretical: it has > happened in the past. I don't think we lack the needed check and > balances here. Indeed, it's not a checks-and-balance thing for me. It's about making a fundimental statement. I believe that the current document is non-specific enough that there shoudn't be a requirement to change it easily, and indeed that would potentially open up the DPL to various accusations of bias for unilaterally changing something. I'm also wary of the difference between a) having a GR to add something and b) explicitly overruling the DPL. > So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote > on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate > one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public > feedback welcome --- it might be simpler if Wouter simply does not > accept Neil's second amendment. > Indeed, I would also prefer it if it was on the ballot separately! I think it's a point that should be put before the developers as I'm aware that my personal view on this may or may not be shared by the developers in general! Thanks, Neil --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature