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

Re: Please update the DSA delegation

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:02:50PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector
> > was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation.
> > The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually
> > discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning
> > teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training
> > process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a
> > valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a
> > public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that
> > it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think).

> Really. Interesting. Honestly, for functional teams the DPL is nothing
> but putting his stamp on team changes the team wants. It shouldn't be
> anything else there.

It absolutely should.  The constitution stipulates that authority flows from
the developers, through the DPL, to the delegated teams.  To say that the
DPL delegation is nothing than a rubber stamp is to say that the team does
not recognize the constitutionally-defined power structures.

In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial
nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question.  But that's
*not* the same thing as the delegation being a "rubber stamp".

> If I remember correctly the DPL learned about the last ftpmaster promotion
> around 2 weeks after it happened.[1]

If the ftp team is a delegated team, then this is a miscarriage of Debian

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: