[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> "Jamin W. Collins" <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> 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. 

If the DAM provided this level of attention to most any other
_volunteer_ job, I suspect he would be politely thanked for his
contribution and replaced by someone more able to perform the task.
Leaving applicants in limbo with no update for years at a time is
uncalled for and derelict.

> The role of the DAM (among others) is very critical to the well-being
> of the Debian Project as a whole. 

And as such should be staffed by a responsive individual with the time
to peform the task.  The current DAM is neither.

> I doubt if there would exist a qualified enough person who would be
> willing to work under specific timeframes. 

That remains to be seen.  

> I would much prefer the current system where the elected DPL has the
> absolute power over the delegates. 

DPL doesn't have absolute power of the delegates.  I refer you to

   Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee.

   The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a specific
   decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the Technical

   Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
   Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
   an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.

You'll note that once the DPL has delegated the position they have
little to no control over it.  They can however withdraw it.  Which is
what Martin should do (IMHO) at this point.

> Guidelines are fine, requirements aren't.

Requiring that at comment regarding the applicant's status be provided
within at least 60 days is hardly a back breaker.  Yet it is still
significantly more than the current DAM has provided.

> > 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.

Actually, he more or less has.  I refer you to:


To which I responded with:


The same questions have been around since the start of this thread, I
simply restated them concisely per his request.  Throughout this thread
the only responses from DPL have been extremely vague.  And there have
been no responses from the DAM that I'm aware of.

Jamin W. Collins

Reply to: