Re: Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile")> 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.
Well, firstly, considering the ballot: the wording is explicitly
talking about policy, and it seems to me therefore that it's
exercising the TC's power in 6.1(1) to "decide on any matter of
technical policy".
If the TC had decided to change the policy, I don't think there is any
serious suggestion that ftpmaster wouldn't have implemented that
decision.
But, anyway, the scope of this power is not limited to the document
entitled "Debian policy" and clearly includes the ftpmaster policy,
insofar as the ftpmaster policy is technical. So unless ftpmaster
were to be entirely capricious (ie, claim to be operating without any
policy) I think they would be bound by the TC decision.
The argument that ftpmaster are delegates of the DPL and thus that
their decisions are not overruleable by the TC is an interesting one
but I think it is mistaken. Constitutionally, the only powers that
the ftpmasters have by virtue of being delegates according to 8.1(1)
are those which are delegated by the DPL - but implicit in
"delegation" is that these must be powers that the DPL has to start
with. I don't think anyone would argue that the DPL has the power to
reject or accept packages.
Thus the de jure legitimacy of the ftpmasters' decisions to accept or
reject packages comes from Constitution 3.1(1), and is completely
overrideable by the TC.
Ian.
Reply to: