Re: This does not have to be a GR
Hi,
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 16:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> At this point, and in part given that GR 2021_003 introduced time
> limits, I think the GR process might produce the swiftest results,
> and
> it will yield the best legitimacy-wise (i.e. the whole project is
> invited to debate and improve the proposed text, and accept it
> above/below the approval threshold.
[...]
> > The DPL could delegate to a group of people knowledgeable in EU law
> > to draft
> > a statement that is congruent with the interest of Debian.
>
> This text was in fact drafted by a lawyer (I don't know if by a _set_
> of lawyers) and discussed among DDs at several in-person meetings
> before reaching this stage.
If we don't know if it was written by one or more people, we don't know
their persuasion either, or what the diff between the original draft
and the proposed version is. Maybe a lawyer only rubber stamped the
initial draft in the end.
It is nice that this was discussed by a small group of people in
private, but the first time I (for example) heard about this was on
2023-11-12 when the GR started. I plan to vote it below FD for that.
It also only reached d-d-a@ only on 2023-11-19, after half the
discussion period was already over.
> I strongly advocated using the GR process, as it has already been
> subjected to a long discussion, and the timeframe for it to be
> usefully considered is drawing to an end.
Well, that is the case for pretty much everything. It even could be a
legitimate reason to suggest to dissolve the tech ctte and replace it
with GRs ;-)
(Most things that get escalated to the tech-ctte were discussed among
DDs at several occasions in private or public too, and having swifter
decisions would probably be good looking back at issues that were
reopened several times without much new arguments and took a long time
to get closed again...)
Ansgar
Reply to: