Questioning the TC's power to decide on technical policy

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

I'm quite concerned at the current line of enquiry being pursued by
the Secretary in #727708.

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
initially".

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
Secretary.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks,
Ian.