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

Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader

Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously
> > against some developers' opinions?
> If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's
> opinion, then, frankly, the DPL cannot possibly make any decision, ever.

I disagree.  I believe it would usually be possible to find ways upon
which all developers agree, even if that way is sometimes the vote
system instead of an executive decision by the DPL.

> Fortunately, the DPL is empowered by the constitution to "Make any
> decision for whom noone else has responsibility." (5.1.4).

The ability to make decisions no-one else can does not give the DPL
absolute power.  Even when making such a decision, the DPL should follow
the procedure given (5.3), which includes "attempt to make decisions which
are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers".
I don't feel that has happened, in a few incidents now.

> > [...] Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather
> > than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored.
> Unfortunately, on this subject, which suggestions are considered
> reasonable diverges hugely depending whom you ask. I agree consensus
> would be preferred, but a compromise isn't always preferable, because
> you would not easily arrive at some of the more interesting decisions
> that a DPL with a mission could arrive at. [...]

Some suggestions may need to be rejected and I have no problem with
that idea - and in some cases, it's necessary to reject some to build
a good consensus.  My complaint above is that some valid suggestions
seemed to be totally *ignored* - much like the point above...

> I'd say Anthony is trying.

Very.  Let him try us no longer!

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: