[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution or Technical Committee's decision? (was: Ready to vote on 2004-003?)

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:17:42PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > No, I don't have any ability to delegate things to the developer body
> > as a whole. But the developer body as a whole do have the ability to
> > overrule both myself (4.1.3) and the tech ctte (4.1.4), without me saying
> > or doing anything.
> Anthony, we're going in circles. 

Yes, that's what happens when you don't pay attention the first
time. Pretty boring, huh?

> The developer body is preparing a GR in
> order to overrule your decision (some proposals at least). Obviously, a
> proposal:
> "We declare the RM's statement in <message@id> to be overruled"
> is not sufficient. 

No, it's not: you need to overrule things with a _new_ decision, not with
absolutely nothing. And "statement in <message@id>" isn't very precise. Do
you mean to overrule my .sig, and tell people they should assume I speak
for more than just myself, or that I don't prefer GPG signed messages,
for example?

But that's the only reason it's not sufficient. If you want to keep the
current SC and just add an exception, that's all it takes. You don't even
need a GR for that, you can just convince the tech ctte to do it. Manoj
has argued that that's a plausible decision, you could talk to him about
it if you like.

I think that'd be violating the social contract; but, hey, that's not
even unconstitutional. And so what if it were, anyway?

> Among other things, your view on it is an important piece of information. 

No, it's not. In this, I'm one member of the Debian project out of
hundreds, and my view represents nothing more than that.

> When we ask you
> for this view, you refuse to, saying that it's the TC that will rule.

No, I refuse to give you my view because people on all sides of this issue
have demonstrated their inclination to use that as an excuse to attack me.
Screw that.

> Although Anthony seems to have contradicted himself in the same mail,
> the only clear message from him that I could figure out was: He will
> delegate the decision to the Technical Committee, anyway.

The decision has already _been_ delegated to the tech ctte. I will not be
"undelegating" the decision. Your options are listed in the constitution.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: