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

Re: Please update the DSA delegation

On 05/12/13 at 14:26 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Please update the DSA delegation"):
> > On 05/12/13 at 09:35 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > > Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want
> > > to solve with the whole delegation process, [...]
> ...
> > This was discussed in
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html.
> Lucas, I'm concerned that you apparently have time to debate the
> merits of our approach to delegates, but unless I'm mistaken you
> haven't found time to simply say "yes" to Hector's promotion to a full
> member of the DSA team.
> Is there some reason (besides lack of DPL team attention, and besides
> some wider questions about what exactly the delegation should consist
> of) why Hector should not be appointed immediately ?  If there is such
> a reason please say that you are considering the merits of the
> appointment.  Otherwise please would you confirm it immediately.

At this point, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't eventually delegate
Hector, in an update of the DSA delegation.

On 05/12/13 at 15:53 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you
> implying that Hector is a controversial nomination?  Where did I miss
> that part?  From what I read in Lucas initial response to Martin, it was
> about general communication issues with the (current) DSA team (wheter
> or not that might be true), not with Hector specificly.  The way you
> phrase it makes it rather sound that Hector is a controversial
> nomination?

At this point, I have no reason to believe that it's controversial.

Now, please, can I go back to work?

(I'm ignoring the questioning on my use of my time, and the comment on
the "lack of DPL team attention")


Reply to: