Re: New policy draft available at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: New policy draft available at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/";):
>         Umm, no. I would not object to the DPL's delegate(s) having
>  the power to overide a formal objection, but there should be some
>  checks and balances.  I was just trying to suggest a process by
>  wihch one could appeal to the tech ctte:

I think that the DPL's delegate should have full authority to do
whatever they feel like.

There are already two important checks and balances: firstly, since
they are the DPL's delegate the DPL can fire them if they're doing a
bad job.  Secondly, any individual decision can be appealed to the
technical committee - whose explict purpose is resolving technical
disputes which can't be resolved any other way (ie, in most cases, by
argument in an appropriate forum).

(Both of these mechanisms for overriding the policy maintainer(s) are
available to the membership via general resolution, too, but I expect
that to be unnecessary.)

>         The one advantage of specifying something like this is that
>  the amendment in question is put on hold until the tech ctte rules.

Clearly the status quo should be preserved while the technical
committee makes up its mind.

>         Or am I getting too paranoid about concentration of power into
>  the hands of the delegate(s)?

I think you are.

Ian.