Re: Proposal - Project infrastructure team procedures
On Fri, 2 May 2008 16:22:53 +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> said:
> * Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) [080502 15:45]:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 11:51:53 +0200, Andreas Barth
>> <aba@not.so.argh.org> said:
>> > * Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [080502 01:27]:
>> > Why not making it the other way, allowing the DPL to remove people
>> > if he wants?
>>
>> Well, that does not sound like a delegation. And as all powers flow
>> as powers of the DPL, delegated to other people -- I think the DPL
>> ought to be actively involved in delegation.
> I'm happy enough if the DPL can stop delegating further on. That's by
> far more practical.
But that is not the consitution we have agreed to. You might be
right, the constitution is inefficient here, and perhaps blithely
ignoring it is best, or even practical.
> May I ask the question the other way round: Why stop any working team
> on adding new members only because the DPL is currently too busy to
> approve that new member? (Of course, if the team disagrees within
> itself, or whatever, the DPL is the instance being able to make a
> decision.)
The sub-delegation effect has precedent, and can be used as a
stopgap until the DPL gets time to respond.
>> > So teams can expand themselfs (like the release team regularly
>> > does), but the DPL can still make sure that no unwanted people are
>> > delegated there.
>>
>> Well, as I read the constitution, the added team members do not
>> really have the powers themselves, but are sub-delegates or
>> assistants, and the delegated folks have the responsibility.
> So, do you think that I am Release Manager, and if so, have any power
> as that, and if so, why do I have powers? (Subdelegated via aj ->
> vorlon -> aba?)
> Same for Stable Release Manager, please (which is especially funny,
> because I think there was nothing except self-proclamaition on that).
I think you are lending credence to Clint's argument about
cronyism and wholescale flouting of the constitution here. At first
blush, this does seem like a failure of the DPL's in question to act.
Now, I must admit that cronyism or not, the release management
seems to be working, but at one point so were some of the other teams,
which have come under criticism of late for being obstructive.
It boils down to this: Do we want a project governed by a
constitution, or do we want brilliant, hard workers, with friends in
the DSA (or other infrastructure teams), gain powers be mere
proclamation, and then present the DPL with a fait accompli that they
would be loth to disrupt (since it would be an improvement over status
quo)?
If the project decides that the constitution needs an overhaul,
or needs to be shelved completely, that would be fine. Should some
infrastructure folks decide on their own that they can just ignore the
whole constitutional delegation bit, add their friends on to the teams,
and get upset when the DPL appoints someone else?
manoj
Holy cow, I might be beginning to see Clint's point
--
QOTD: "Like this rose, our love will wilt and die."
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: