Re: Intent to Delegate: Delegation Advisory Group
Le jeudi 05 septembre 2019 à 09:35:01-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
>
>
> I don't think it even means that.
>
> > 8.2. Appointment
>
> > The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced
> > by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not
> > make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by
> > the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once
> > made.
>
> That is, if they introduced a resolution overriding a decision I made, I
> could not remove that resolution. I cannot change the decision they
> made.
>
> There's a related provision:
>
> > 5.1. Powers
>
> > The Project Leader may:
> > 1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee.
> > The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a
> > specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the
> > Technical Committee.
> > Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
> > Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw
> > an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility.
>
> Even that doesn't say that there cannot be overlaps in areas of
> responsibility; the thing that cannot be overidden is a *decision*.
>
> However, it is slightly more complicated:
>
> > 4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.
>
> It has generally been interpreted that once the DPL delegates something
> under 5.1 (4) that's something for whom someone else now has
> responsibility and so the DPL themselves cannot act.
>
> My interpretation is that the DPL can revise the delegation and
> potentially even create overlapping delegations, but in general
> (especially without special wording in the delegation text) cannot
> themselves act in such a situation.
>
> Which is to say that I strongly agree with the principle behind how
> we've interpreted it, I agree with the practical consequences I can
> think of, but there are some corner cases (that are unlikely to come up)
> where I think evolution of our thinking would be valuable.
>
> However none of this matters to the current situation.
> The power in question comes from 5.1(5) not 5.1(4).
> We'll save the question of whether I could write a delegation such that
> I delegated all of my 5.1(5) power and retained none of it myself: I'm
> definitely not doing that here.
Ack, thanks for the clarification. :)
--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Reply to: