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

Re: infrastructure team procedures (fifth edit)

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > We acknowledge the previously existing ambiguity, and then continue on
> > a fully constitutionally defined procedure to decide things that resolve
> > any such ambiguity.
> >
> > What's your dilemma again? :)
> That it's not fully spelled out.
> I mean, I still find it hard to imagine that appearantly some people claim(ed) 
> the constitution wasnt applicable for their debian roles, so if you intend to 
> fix this, I think it needs to be made explicitly.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone explicitly claim that. The Constitution
is applicable in the generic manner, so it might be unclear whether DPL
delegating something to or undelegating something from an infrastructure
team member means the same thing as DPL undelegating someone's package from
them - which wouldn't be acceptable.

Once this resolution passes, we have a new path from the constitution
(via the developer body's general resolution under constitutional rules)
to the whole notion of infrastructure teams, so it becomes clear that
membership in an infrastructure team is not the same as 'owning' a package.


     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: