Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL
Bill Allombert dijo [Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 10:33:34AM +0000]:
> > > I offer the following ballot option for your consideration.
> > >
> > > ----- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -----
> > >
> > > The Debian developers delegate to the Debian Project Leader the task of issuing
> > > a Public Statement about the 'EU Cyber Resilience Act and the Product Liability
> > > Directive' that addresses Debian interests in the matter.
> > >
> > > ----- GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS -----
> >
> > I follow your logic in proposing this, although my interpretation of
> > ¶5.1.4[0] in our constitution leads me to believe that the DPL does not need
> > any delegation for this, so perhaps the intention becomes more of "Let the
> > DPL decide".
>
> I agree with you on that point, but note that what matters
> constitutionaly is that the DDs via the GR process has authority to do
> it, and so have also the authority to delegate it, even to someone who
> would otherwise have this authority.
>
> The point of this ballot option is to differentiate from 'NOTA' which
> can be interpreted as precluding from issuing a statement.
I understand your reasoning here, and to an extent, it makes
sense. But I guess the right verb (for the Debian project to...) would
not be "delegate", but rather "request" or something in that line
(might be harder, as in "demand", or softer, as in "ask"...?)
> > In February I posted[1] about the CRA to debian-project[1]. My intention was
> > to get a few good people to spend some time to focus on this, since my
> > available bandwidth for this was low (and continued to be since then).
> >
> > I'm not sure that it's a good idea to leave it as a DPL task, it might delay
> > an actual public statement by a month or even more. That said, I'm not
> > completely against the idea, if this ends up happening I would likely
> > combine the best current ideas in an etherpad and invite everyone to list
> > and hammer out any remaining issues.
>
> My view is that when drafting such statement, we should always keep in
> mind what is its purpose. If it is to be read by the EU regulators, it
> should be written by someone knowing their legal languages.
Right. This ball was already in our DPL's court, but the DPL has to
dance many dances. And we have only one DPL, who decided to spend his
energy in a different way.
The current GR followed some antecedents that (surprise, surprise, we
are Debian!) were not time-bound.
As I understand, the EU legislative process is quite advanced now, and
I doubt we have the time to build "the perfect response". And the
answer from the EU legislative body will not be to read and consider
each bullet point we make --- While they are all important mostly *for
people quoting and making press releases* in the technical community,
the European legislative bodies will just see "oh, a biggish project
opposes CRA".
We want to communicate the reasoning as clearly as possible to our
peers and to journalists. But we want *something* to be issued while
we are still in the due time for the legislative process.
Reply to: