Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:07:11PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> According to the Debian Constitution, he only has mastery over the
> keyring because he's a "Delegate" appointed by the DPL.
Yeah, like that's ever mattered. I can't actually remember someone
saying "for this period of time James Troup is going to be in charge of
this or that position". When the task needed to be done, before the
constitution and all that, James was there and did it.
Perserving the status quo? No, I don't agree with that. But according
to our constitution that doesn't matter much, does it? In fact, what
matters more directly is what the DPL thinks. And the current DPL
stated his opinion on the matter rather succinctly not even a month
ago.
No matter what the constitution says, we are in general happy with
people stepping forward, rolling up their sleeves and working. In this
particular case, and going back to the DAM topic, you could say that
James is _not_ working, since there's no public record of that work, or
better said, the public records suggest that the work is not being done
(new maintainers appear only sporadically and full blown rejections
just don't happen).
Fine.
Who do you want in that position then?
Because if this discussion is ever going to end for any significant
ammount of time, you have two basic options: you force James to do DAM
work or you replace him. The first one is never going to work.
> Of course he has a right (and duty) to be concerned about who manages
> the keyring, and to give his opinion about that to the DPL (even if
> his opinion is that he is the only one who can be trusted), but
> that's not what you said.
No, that's not what I said, but I can agree with that.
Marcelo
Reply to: