Re: Intent to Delegate: Delegation Advisory Group

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

    Holger> Hi Sam, why exactly do you think a delegation is useful
    Holger> and/or needed here?

Holger and I discussed that off-list.
As a result he made two proposals:

1) Avoid the word privy in the delegation text as that's confusing to a
non-native English speaker.  I'll do that.

2) He asked me to clarify whether it was the members or the team who had
the power to file a GR.
In effect he argued that as written the text is unclear on the team's
internal process for how they would decide to do something like file a
GR overriding the DPL.

That is intentional.
My understanding of the secretary's interpretation of the constitution
is that delegations cannot describe the process by which a team makes
decisions that are delegated to the team.
I don't agree with all the rationale involved, but I do believe that:

1) Even if there are cases where a delegation can give process details,
it is often a bad idea to do so

2) This is a case where the team should have latitude to figure out
their own internal process.

My hope is that they will either choose that a consensus or majority of
the team is required to introduce a GR overriding a delegation.  But
they could decide that any member can introduce such a resolution, or
decide all members must agree, or many other things.  My hope is also
that they will appoint a member to accept or decline amendments on
behalf of the team should they ever introduce a GR.  (That gets around
an inconvenience that the TC used when exercising similar power).  But
all that should be up to the team.

--Sam