Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> .oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
> already used in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg00006.html and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg00004.html)
Sorry I didn't spot it earlier :-).
> Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
> Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
> should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
> Dear Secretary, what do you think?
The TC doesn't have the power to delegate. Instead it is the body of
last resort (see 6.3.6). If no-one is unhappy with the current
composition of the policy maintenance team (which seems to be the
case) then there is no dispute to resolve; if someone was unhappy and
brought it to the TC it would be dealt with under 6.1.2 "who should be
the maintainer of a package".
6.1.1 is for situations such as someone being unhappy with the
specific contents of some bit of policy, and taking it to the TC.
This is not unusual and we have decided such questions in the past.
I think the constitutional position of the policy team is as follows:
They are a package maintainer team. They normally make their
decisions themselves under 3.1.1.
The policy editors' decisions on the contents of policy (or their
failure to make such decisions) are subject to review by the TC, as I
note above. The TC may overrule the editors with a simple majority.
The composition of the policy team is a matter primarily for the team
itself. Their team membership decisions are subject to review by the
TC, if a dispute arises, under 6.1.2 "who".
The policy team's decisions on the policy process are not subject to
review. The constitutional position is that the TC will instead
review the results of the policy process (or the lack of results), as
I discuss above. However:
If some group of people felt that the policy process was sufficiently
bad, it would be open to them to suggest that they should take the
package over and run the process in some different way. If that led
to a dispute the TC could adjudicate it under 6.1.2 "who". (But this
is all entirely hypothetical: In the current situation I can't imagine
anyone sane wanting to do anything as aggressive as that, and
historically the TC has been reluctant to hand over packages to other
people.)
So, in summary, I think there is nothing to be done here, except
(ideally) for you to withdraw the delegation statement.
The policy editors will continue to be the maintainers of the policy
package, and can change the policy team membership and the policy
process as they see fit. Their substantive decisons are subject to
the TC's review. If they go entirely mad the TC can replace them.
Ian.
Reply to: