Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
Steve> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:59:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> Why not dispense with the vote and simply have the DPL sign for
>> the project? Then at least those who are not in agreement will
>> not feel directly targeted, though they may disagree with the
Steve> Constitutionally, this is not permitted. The DPL does not
Steve> have the authority to issue non-technical statements on
Steve> behalf of the project.
I think Steve and I are in agreement at least as regards this case.
But I think it's valuable to be a bit more expansive.
While the DPL cannot generally issue statements on behalf of the
the DPL can issue statements as the project leader under constitution
I think that constitutionally, a DPL could decide that the letter is
sufficiently in alignment with Debian's goals, and relevant statements
we've made (the diversity statement and the CoC) and sign in his
official role as DPL.
I think that would be a stronger statement than signing as an individual
and weaker than signing on behalf of the project.
In this instance, especially given the GR is on the table, I don't think
the DPL should do that at this time.
Based on what Jonathan has said, I understand he has no plans to do so.
Secondly, there is a case where the DPL could potentially speak on
behalf of the project: constitution section 5.1(3) allows the DPL to act
when a timely decision is needed.
The consensus of those involved (I believe including the DPL) appears to
be that does not apply in this situation.