Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Gerfried Fuchs writes ("Re: Please update the DSA delegation"):
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2013-12-05 03:32:19 CET]:
> > 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".
>
> 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?
Perhaps we are just having a misunderstanding of the phrase "rubber
stamp".
What I meant to say is that (even if the DPL hasn't explicitly asked
the team to manage its own membership) when things are working
reasonably well I would expect the DPL to routinely and quickly
approve uncontroversial appointments (if I may borrow your word).
I'm not saying that the DPL doesn't have a discretion. To me the
phrase "rubber stamp" means an approval which in principle could be
withheld but which we all predict will be granted (and, probably,
granted without a deep investigation of the issues).
It seems to me that Hector's appointment to DSA ought to fall in this
category, unless there's something going on that I'm missing.
Ian.
Reply to: