Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > If someone made arguments along those lines I would advise the > Secretary to say that these things are matters for the DPL, and that > if a Developer feels that the DPL has overstepped the mark they should > use a General Resolution to do so. > > Likewise, if the TC is overzealous within its domain of authority > (which clearly does include the contents of the policy manual) the > proper response is a General Resolution, not for the Secretary to > claim that the TC decision is void. On the other hand, a GR is heavy artillery, and should not be used unless attempts at consensus were previously made. Perhaps you should consider the inquiries as an attempt to avoid the heavy artillery, an attempt to resolve issues in a timely, civilised manner. > I think all of these things are very dangerous territory for the > Secretary. The Secretary should avoid getting involved in the > substance of these kind of subjective disputes about what is and is > not sufficiently ripe, or what is or isn't detailed design, or what is > or isn't sufficient consultation. The technical committee should also avoid getting involved in the practice of detailed design, or design of new policies (and whether something can or cannot depend on some other thing *is* policy, and therefore not the jurisdiction of the CTTE, for example; unless 6.1.4 or 6.1.2 apply, and in the disputed case, neither of them do). I suggest you take your own advice, too. Also, see 7.1.3, in relation with 6.3.5 and 6.3.6 - I believe the Secretary has every right to get involved, both on his own, and on behalf of others. > This is particularly the case when the complaint is not in fact being > made by the policy maintainers whose toes are allegedly being stepped > on; rather it is being made by one side of this unfortunate and > politically charged argument because they foresee an outcome they > don't like. If it is - as you say - politically charged argument, then I must strongly urge the technical committee to use and vote with the ballot the CTTE chairman posted[1] earlier, because that one is about a technical decision, about the question the committee was actually asked about in the first place, and avoids (most of) the politically charged parts. And as you are well aware of, the technical committee is a technical board, that decides on technical matters (6.1.1, 6.1.2). The constitution does not give the CTTE power to rule in politically charged matters. Those powers belong to the developers, by way of General Resolution (4.1.5). [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00281.html -- |8]
Attachment:
pgprH4MARubAO.pgp
Description: PGP signature