.oO ( funny that this comes up now, given the same delegation text was already used in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg00006.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg00004.html)
On 06/01/14 at 13:51 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Furthermore, I don't think this delegation declaration is > > constitutionally appropriate. The policy editors are, primarily, > > maintainers of a package. > > > > Indeed, there's potentially an issue here that the constitution states > (8.3) "Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt > to implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion." > > By defining a process within a delegation, this removes this option, > which a delegation cannot do. > > > The processes for how to maintain a package, and ordinary > > maintainership succession, would seem to fall squarely within the > > current maintainers' own discretion. Jurisdiction to adjudicate > > package maintainership disputes, and oversight of the decisions of the > > policy editors, are explicitly granted to the Technical Committee. > > > > So it seems to me, at the moment, that this delegation is ultra vires > > and hence not binding on the policy maintainers. > > > > Indeed, though please note that this isn't an official interpretation of > the consitution. If you want that, please mail secretary@ :) Doing that now. :-) Also, I'm more worried with the interactions with Constitution 6.1.1. It seems to me that a Policy Editors delegation should have come from the TC, not the DPL. Dear Secretary, what do you think? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140106143846.ga23...@xanadu.blop.info
