On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > Amendment B - Updates to the CoC should be via developers as a whole > Justification - I believe that this document should have the strength of > being a whole project statement. Being able to be updated by a single > person doesn't feel comfortable with me. I understand this argument, but the DPL is not a random single person in Debian, he/she is someone elected by project members. I therefore don't buy that allowing the DPL to change the CoC will diminish in any way the communicative strength of the CoC. Also consider that if a DPL (or delegates) try to change the CoC in a way which is not to the liking of many in the project, we do have the ability to override that decision. And that's not theoretical: it has happened in the past. I don't think we lack the needed check and balances here. So, even if this second amendment is accepted by Wouter, I'd rather vote on two options: one where the DPL might change the CoC, and a separate one which requires a GR. Assuming I'm not alone on this --- public feedback welcome --- it might be simpler if Wouter simply does not accept Neil's second amendment. (FWIW I've no particular opinion on the first one.) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature