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

Re: GR proposal: code of conduct

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.)

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

Reply to: