Re: Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 12:07:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:10:30PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > At the conclusion of our standard voting period of one week, there were
> > > three votes of BAC and one vote of AB. (One additional vote of BAC came
> > > in after the voting period had ended.)
>
> > > As this is, depending on how one looks at it, a conflict between a
> > > maintainer and ftp-master policy or a maintainer and the current
> > > requirements of Debian Policy, I don't believe the 3:1 super-majority
> > > requirement applies here and the ballot should be decided by simple
> > > majority rule.
>
> > Both text clearly talk about policy, and not about overriding
> > ftp-master. Overriding ftp-master would be overriding a delegate
> > of the DPL, and I don't think you have that power to begin with.
>
> This is a surprising claim, but upon review, I see that the constitution
> states only that the TC may overrule Developers, not Delegates, and a strict
> constructionist reading of the constitution would support the idea that a
> Developer, when acting as a Delegate, can not be overruled by the TC.
>
> I think this is a bug in the wording of the constitution however, and not a
> position that is supported by historical practice. I'm fairly certain that
> this is not what our DPLs expected when expanding the scope of delegated
> roles within the project.
>
> Perhaps Ian would like to chime in here wearing his "I wrote the
> constitution" hat. :)
I've been wondering how to interprete that for some time. My
current idea is that it would require a GR to do that.
Kurt
Reply to: