Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ...
* Ian Jackson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060605 14:08]:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#366938: svn commit access to the d-i repo ..."):
> > I don't. I think delegating a decision needs to be a bit more explicit than
> > that, it's my understanding that this was just AJ telling Sven what his
> > appeal options were. He can of course clarify if he disagrees, but AFAICT
> > this is a case of Sven asking us to override the DPL.
> We don't need to agree on this point. (Note that I if AJ thought he
> was telling Sven was hit appeal options were, he was wrong, since the
> TC can't overrule the leader on nontechnical questions.)
> > > 3. Access controls to source code repositories are not something in the
> > > regular domain of the Technical Committee. However, in this case the
> > > decision was delegated by the Project Leader to the Technical
> > > Committee as appeal instance of the Project Leader's decision.
> > suggest striking this and renumbering paragraph 4 as 3.
> I think it is important for us to say that we don't think this is our
> normal remit. How about:
> 3. Access controls to source code repositories are not something in the
> regular domain of the Technical Committee. However, there is some
> doubt in this case whether the Project Leader has intended to ask
> the Technical Committee to review the decision.
"there is some doubt" reads for me as non-native speaker as "basically,
the DPL didn't intend, but we cannot prove". If the native speakers
disagree with this reading (and consider it rather neutral), it's ok for
me. (Actually, I don't mind too much how exactly it is written, as long
as we (a) get this issue done soon, (b) explicitly uphold the decisions
that were done.)