Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003
"Jamin W. Collins" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Could a GR not be used to set/change the operation requirements of a
> delegated office, mandating operation guidelines/timeframes? Seems to
> fall in line with 4.1(3). The DPL has still not provided a clear
> statement about the delegated responsibilities or authority of the DAM.
Please remember that all Debian positions are _volunteer_ jobs. The
role of the DAM (among others) is very critical to the well-being of
the Debian Project as a whole. I doubt if there would exist a
qualified enough person who would be willing to work under specific
timeframes. I would much prefer the current system where the elected
DPL has the absolute power over the delegates. One of the key
qualities of the DPL, IMO, is the ability of both delegating jobs and
keeping track of them.
Guidelines are fine, requirements aren't.
> And if both the DAM and DPL pointed ignore this dissatisfaction?
If the DPL ignores the discussion on debian-devel, then the DPL has
IMO proven him/herself unqualified for the job and should be replaced
in the next election. Martin has not, AFAICS, ignored this discussion
even though he hasn't taken much part in it.
* Sacherin toinen laki: Elämä ilman suklaakakkua ei ole elämää. *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *