Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures

[Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 05:27:56PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What bothers me about all this is that we had a nicely detaled document
>  that spells out who has what rights, and it seems fairly clear to me that
>  all powers in Debian stem from the powers laid down there; but that
>  nicely detailed document is not enough.
> 
>         What makes one thing that any non-supermajority GR which says
>  essentially the same thing as the constitution will have any weight?

The Constitution is nicely detailed, but it doesn't recognize infrastructure
teams. It doesn't have a generic handler (so to speak) for groups of
developers - it does handle delegations which can expand into N developers,
but this is done in a completely impractical way, judging by history.

>         Are people who were grandfathered by the constitution (or some
>  such equally silly argument) not also grandfathered by this forthcoming
>  GR? What changes?

That's a good question, and the reason why I initially proposed that we
don't try to force the delegation/undelegation system as it is - it doesn't
seem entirely appropriate for the teams because some things simply predate
the notion of a project leader, it will easily seem anachronistic and
pretentious for the leaders to be able to undelegate someone's access to
something they've created and maintained for a decade, without requiring any
sort of a criterion to base that decision on.

But others don't seem to mind that...

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.