Re: Questions Regarding Delegates
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Probably. But what is the purpose of not being able to delegate to
> > the DPL then? I doubt it was added just to make sure that people
> > understand that delegation means sharing power with someone else.
> We should ask the constitution writers (Ian Jackson?) to know their
Or digg the archives... the wording of this paragraph has been introduced
between v0.1 and v0.2 of the constitution:
The relevant discussions concerning the version 0.1 are in that thread:
I didn't find any rationale justifying that particular change between 0.1 and 0.2.
The same paragraph was strangely worded in 0.1:
"The powers of a person or body may be subject to review and/or limitation
by others; in this case the reviewing body or person's entry will state
> But, as far as I interpret it, it is a way to let his hands clear to :
> - do his administrative and technical DPL tasks;
> - be free from conflicts of interests;
> - represent every single DD or team;
> - be impartial and objective so as to mediate correctly.
While this is nice theory, the DPL is not paid as are real politicians
that are elected. I think there should be no rule that forbid the DPL to
continue doing what he likes within Debian.
If a DPL is involved in a team and have to take a decision concerning that
team, he still has the possibility to delegate that particular decision to
avoid any conflict of interest.
And as usual, there's the general resolution of the developers as safety
in case the leader goes too far.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :