On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is > constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily, > maintainers of a package. > Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states (8.3) "Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion." By defining a process within a delegation, this removes this option, which a delegation cannot do. > The processes for how to maintain a package, and ordinary > maintainership succession, would seem to fall squarely within the > current maintainers' own discretion. Jurisdiction to adjudicate > package maintainership disputes, and oversight of the decisions of the > policy editors, are explicitly granted to the Technical Committee. > > So it seems to me, at the moment, that this delegation is ultra vires > and hence not binding on the policy maintainers. > Indeed, though please note that this isn't an official interpretation of the consitution. If you want that, please mail secretary@ :) Neil --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature