Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:40:52 +1000, Anthony Towns <email@example.com> said:
> What has happened since is that the delegation has apparently been
> taken as a mandate for the policy editors to set policy according to
> their own opinion without any obligation to consult each other, or
> the developers as a whole. I'm not willing to have delegations exist
> in that way.
Can you cite any instance that his has actually happened? Or
is this a proactive action based on speculation of the future? Has
there ever been any change acecepted into policy that was not
>> Anthony, I ask you as the DPL, please delay that decision yourself,
>> thus making this "stupid" voting process unnecessary.
> The process is already unnecessary, Manoj can continue to maintain
> policy through his membership in the technical committee, and the
> only reason he can't revert to the process that's was used since mid
> '98 until mid last year is that he's put his secretary hat on and
> read a new interpretation into the constitution that retroactively
> disallows that.
I do not think there was a new interpretation. I The old
policy process was continuing since despite my appeals, no DPL ever
delegated policy editing powers away, and policy desperately needed
I decided to do something that was constitutionally untenable
because I deemed not modifying policy as being worse for the
project. Lesser of two evils and all that. If policy bit rots again
as itdid when Christian left, I suppose I'll countenance breaking the
constitution again, in order to get policy fixed.
But then, _anyone_ could just NMU the policyu package, I
suppose, if the constitutional violation does not bother them.
Afternoon, n.: That part of the day we spend worrying about how we
wasted the morning.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C