Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation
.oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was
already used in
On 06/01/14 at 13:51 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
> 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@ :)
Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with
Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation
should have come from the TC, not the DPL.
Dear Secretary, what do you think?