>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> writes:
Anthony> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:46:04AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> The DPL already has the power to delegate tasks. I do not see how
>> electing more than one person would help with sharing the work: if it
>> can be shared, it is already possible to do so.
Anthony> Hey, that's a good question. How /is/ electing more than one person
Anthony> different to electing one person and letting them delegate?
Anthony> Here's some ways:
Anthony> - no single point of failure (if the DPL disappears, there aren't
Anthony> new delegations)
If the DPL disappears, we shouldn't be afraid to elect a new one. And
according to 7.1 of the Constitution, the Secretary and the CTTE Chair
can stand in for the DPL meanwhile. I would not be opposed to officially
delegate a small number of people (likely from DAM/MIA/Secretary) who
can declare the DPL absent, and thus, allow the Secretary and the CTTE
chair to take over responsibilities quickly.
With this in mind, I do not think the DPL is a single point of failure,
because we already have procedures to handle that situation.
Anthony> - delegates don't have authority of their own, and the DPL can just
Anthony> undelegate them; so an elected position is "more impressive" than a
Anthony> delegated one, and you can maybe do more impressive things with it?
I may be biased, but I believe that delegates are more impressive, than
elected positions. An elected person can also be removed from office -
though, that's much harder to do than undelegating someone.
Anthony> - delegates tend to have specific, well-defined powers/responsibilities
Anthony> while the DPL position can be used for lots of things (mediation,
Anthony> inspiring speeches, handing out money, setting roadmaps, negotiating
Anthony> with partner organisations, ..)
I do not think this is a bad situation, to be honest. Having different
people handling the mediation, money, roadmap and other stuff can
quickly become confusing. Even more so if the involved people are not in
full agreement.
Anthony> - if one person goes off in a weird direction, it's easy to throw
Anthony> them out and choose someone different; if a whole bunch of people do,
Anthony> getting rid of all of them can be harder
Well, that's a good reason for having a single DPL, instead of a
team. :)
>> Electing more people would also overcomplicate the process.
Anthony> So if one elected person and delegates is better for the DPL, shouldn't
Anthony> that apply to the tech ctte too? Just appoint a chair and let them pick
Anthony> half a dozen folks to help out.
Yes and no. The CTTE must work together with the DPL, therefore the DPL
having a say in its composition can be desirable. Furthermore, I believe
it is healthy to let the CTTE choose their own Chair, and that wouldn't
work well, if the chair was appointed.
I toyed with the idea of trying to push a CTTE reform, but have given up
on it by now. I came to the conclusion that the CTTE works better as a
(reasonably) DPL-independent body. I'd like to see how well (or how bad)
the recently introduced new rules work, before pushing for any bigger
changes.
--
|8]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature