Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > This has not been possible in the past since there was no > sanction for any such person, or indeed, even this process. Unless > the DPL is willing to stand up and empower a person or a group, there > is not constitutional power given to anyone except the tech ctte to > create new policy. Before we had the constitution we didn't have a way of doing that. Now that we do I would like to find some framework for this and make it an official delegate or committee. > Indeed, the problem seems to be lack of volunteers, and time: > Anyone developer can take up a policy proposal, and call for > discussion, or move the process along. I also remember you saying you didn't want to take that role since there was no official framework for it, so it's more then just a lock of volunteers. > Unfortunately, few people have stepped up to the plate (Julian > did a lot a while ago, but he scaled back since) We already have two so far.. > The implication here is that you need someone to do most of > the work, and just keep everyone else in the loop. I'm not sure if it is most of the work. It will be more though. On the other hand I think this will benefit the policy and thus the distribution.. > I think that we should stick to the current method of policy changes > which allows for anyone to initiate discussions, and a small group of > developers to bring changes forth; what we need is someone with > authority to step in and steer discussions that are stalled; and > decide whether a consensus has been reached. And kill of clearly wrong solutions as well I think. > I still do not think that this person should be able to > override formal objections from more than one developer (in other > words, two or more develoerps formally objecting to the policy lead > should be able to bring the issue before the technical committee). This seems like you are contradicting yourself: even if someone is able to override formal objections from the policy-creating process there is always the technical committee (which was partially created for this reason). Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgp7c6IAjWf_C.pgp
Description: PGP signature