Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Debian Project Secretary <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
> answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
> changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.
OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any authority to a
delegate? Ie. the DPL could delegate somebody to overrule developers
on technical actions (6.1.4) or adjudicate disputes about
interpretation of the constitution (7.1.3). I did read the
constitution so that the DPL may not delegate authority that belongs
to somebody else according to the constitution.
I did think that you were referring to a future DPL delegation when
you answered to aj, but I guess you were referring to the REJECT.
> As per that interpretation, I've added a REJECT for uploads of
> debian-policy. I won't be looking into formally creating a new
> delegation 'til after etch has released, at which point I hope we
> can find at least four people who'll be active in maintaining policy
> according to the policy process we've had for quite some time.
> This presupposes that you have either managed to change the
> constitution, or replaced the secretary with one whose views are in
> line with yours -- since under current wording of the constitution,
> that would be unconstitutional.
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *