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

Re: question for all candidates

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes ("question for all candidates"):
> So, to the question:
> Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
> reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
> delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?

I'm not a candidate, but:

There seems to be no question here at all.  The delegate status was
always intended to cover (for example) the ftp administrators.  The
practical effect of this is that the Leader can fire (say) the release

I have heard some people claim that this is not the case and that
somehow some of the teams like the release and ftp teams are not
answerable to anyone.  This is patent nonsense.

Of course, the Leader should not needlessly annoy any of the delegate
teams.  For example, Branden said:
 `[the previous] project leader doesn't feel that the delegation
  process in our Constitution is the way Debian really works. He
  characterized a refusal to make delegates of the archive
  administrators, system administrators, and so forth as "pragmatic".'

I think the right way to interpret this is to see that many of the
people who do not agree about the constitutional position are doing a
good job anyway, and there is no need to rub their noses in it or
force them to lose a political battle.

Branden seemed to be suggesting that he would formally issue a
statement saying that certain people were delegates.  I think that
would have been a mistake.

The Leader should leave the situation in limbo unless they intend to
fire the current incumbents and have volunteers to replace them.  And
of course they should only do that if the incumbents need replacing,
which I don't think is currently the case with any of the teams I'm
aware of.


Reply to: