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

Re: Delegations

* Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> [2003-05-13 11:46]:
> Has there been any progress in formalizing the delegate status of
> positions that existed prior to the ratification of our
> Constitution?  Do the people occupying these positions believe
> themselves to be delegates or not?

I take a quite pragmatic approach with this.  While it would be nice
to formalize the status of these positions, I think this is against
the way Debian works.  I've always encouraged people to *do stuff* if
they see something needs to be done.  They shouldn't wait for the DPL
to create a delegate position.  As matter of fact, I can give myself
as an example.  I noticed that inactive maintainers were a problem and
started doing something about it.  People noticed my work and finally
I gained "authority".  This didn't involve the DPL at all.  Of course
the DPL at that time could have sanctioned what I was doing anyway and
made me an official delegate, but what for...?  The work is getting
done, and that's important.  Whether by an official delegate, a
"random developer" or a non-developer doesn't really matter.  If the
work isn't getting done, we have a problem, of course.  If no delegate
exists for the task, I could surely create that position.  However, if
someone is supposed to be doing the task but is not doing so, then I
will do something about it -- regardless of whether they are a
delegate or not.

So what I'm saying is that I worry more about the work getting done
than about the status of the person.  It would be nice to formalize
the delegate status, but at the same time I don't think there's much
gain in going back and sanctioning what people are doing anyway.  If a
person does not carry out their responsibilities or a task needs to be
done, then, yes, I will do something about it.

Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: