Re: Questioning the TC's power to decide on technical policy
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 06:48:25PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm quite concerned at the current line of enquiry being pursued by
> the Secretary in #727708.
People ask me questions. Should I just ignore them because you
think it's not a good time to answer them?
I would also like to point out that I never claimed to be wearing
my secretary hat.
> If I were in the Secretary's position I would refuse to entertain an
> argument that the TC is impermissibly doing "detailed design work" or
> has failed to allow "the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
> documentation" (ie the policy maintainers) to "make [the] decision
I would like to point out that I never took any position, or made
any ruling on it. If it looks like it did, I apologize. I'm
trying to understand what people are thinking and trying to see
what the consensus is, and I'm actually still not sure about it.
But the constitution does explictly say that you can't do detailed
design work. All I can say is that I see no consensus on wheter
the TC is doing that or not. And I suggest you find a way so that
nobody can argue that case.
> I would respond that whether or not something has been sufficiently
> discussed or decided already, or whether the TC is impermissibly
> engaging in detailed design work, is a matter for the TC, not for the
Please see 6.1.1 and 6.3.5.
> An analogous situation arises with the DPL's powers. Should the
> Secretary be prepared to entertain an argument that a DPL decision was
> void because it wasn't "consistent with the consensus of the opinions
> of the Developers" ? Or that it was void because the DPL had failed
> to "informally solicit the views of the Developers" or the DPL had
> "overemphasized their own point of view when making decisions in their
> capacity as Leader" ?
> 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.
I have to agree that a GR is the proper way to do that. I have no
power to revoke a decision. But I can say what I think the
constitution says and I hope that people than act accordingly.
> 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.
So because I'm secretary I should not be involved in any
discussion, even if people ask me, is that what you're saying?