On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Sorry, but that won't work. The Constitution already empowers the DPL to do
> things that nobody else is explicitly in charge of, yet none of them ever
> did anything substantial to e.g. bop DSA to be more active. If we explicate
Fine to me that you think that won't work, but let me disagree. AFAIK
none of our foundation documents explicitly states that DSA (since we
all know that is the *current* problem) is under the "control" of DPL.
So the other powers you're mentioning above do not (unfortunately)
apply. I do think that we, as the developer body, need to make a move
and state that the DPL is in power of un-delegating, or whatever you
want to call that, DSA members.
I do believe this can solve the problem, but I understand you disagree
on this. Your proposal is, in principle, fine with me, but I do fear the
large amount of bureaucracy it will add to various teams.
> I think having agreed-upon rules is the best way to proceed. I don't
> want to give the DPL or the existing team members a blank cheque
> authority over infrastructure teams. They are nobody's personal
> playground, they are a common good and they need to be governed as
> such.
Being under the authority of the DPL is not being in someone's personal
playground, since the leader is elected by the developer body. To me
that would just be a instance of representation, and the DPL already
represents Debian in various contexts.
Also, think what would happen if today Debian should start a DSA team
from scratch, it would probably start as a group of people delegated by
the DPL. We are not in that fortunate condition just because DSA is
really old.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature