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

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke,
> so afaics that doesn't apply.

Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
seems to apply; the "resolution must say so" verbiage seems to be
there to avoid putting a decision on hold by an amended resolution
seconded by 2K developers which affirms a decision. [Although, the
alternative supposition is tenable, even if it differs from my initial
reading. Clarification by the proposer would resolve this issue.]

I should note as well that 4.2.5 conflicts slightly with the current
powers granted under 4.1.{3,4} to developers... but that's not all
that big of a deal.

> I'm not sure what all this is aiming to achieve beyond being a
> different attempt to effectively prevent me from exercising any DPL
> powers, and to further discourage people from having any faith in
> our constitutional processes.

This part of the process is there to make sure that what those in
vested positions in Debian do don't overstep the bounds set by the
larger project; being able to overrule any constitutional delegate is
an important part of the constitutional process, as hurtful as it may
be to those who are threatened with being overruled.

In any event, it'd be nice to just resolve the after effects if that's
even possible, as it seems that the initial cause of this current
fracas was just heated discussion, the feared consequences of which
have failed to materialize at all.

Don Armstrong

In all matters of government, the correct answer is usually: "Do
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p428

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: