Re: Re-posed: Qs for DPL nominees: structural reforms to delegations
Hi Branden,
thanks a lot for the short and precise questions.
Am Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 12:06:31PM -0500 schrieb G. Branden Robinson:
> Thanks to Andreas, Gianfranco, and others for pointing out that my
> questions to the candidates would be improved by question marks.
>
> As Debian Project Leader (DPL),
>
> 1. Will you remove the words "and Code of Conduct violations" from the
> Community Team delegation charter?
No, I believe the inclusion of "and Code of Conduct violations" is
important for maintaining a clear understanding of the scope of the
Community Team's responsibilities. Removing these words could
potentially create ambiguity about the team's role in addressing such
violations.
> 2. Will you articulate a policy that no Debian Developer shall occupy
> more than one delegated role at a time?
I would gladly suggest this as a general guideline rather than a strict
policy. However, this would only be feasible if we had a large pool of
willing and qualified volunteers to fill delegated roles, which is
currently not the case.
Moreover, I do not see a strong need for such a policy as long as
holding multiple delegated roles does not create a conflict of interest.
> 3. Will you ask any Debian Developers enjoying multiple delegations to
> resign from all but one of their choice?
No. See my answer to 2.
> 4. Will you establish a policy that all delegations made by the Debian
> Project Leader shall be renewed no less frequently than once per DPL
> term?
No, I do not see a need for this policy. Delegations should be made
based on the needs of the project, and there is no reason to set a rigid
renewal timeline if the current delegates are doing their work
effectively.
> 5. Will you continue the practice that team delegation announcements
> by the DPL implicitly withdraw the delegations of any sitting team
> members not mentioned in that same delegation announcement?
Yes, I would continue this practice, as it is an established method of
communication. Since this is already explicitly stated, I see no need to
change it.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
Reply to: