Le jeudi 05 septembre 2019 à 09:35:01-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > >>>>> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes: > > > I don't think it even means that. > > > 8.2. Appointment > > > The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced > > by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not > > make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by > > the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once > > made. > > That is, if they introduced a resolution overriding a decision I made, I > could not remove that resolution. I cannot change the decision they > made. > > There's a related provision: > > > 5.1. Powers > > > The Project Leader may: > > 1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee. > > The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a > > specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the > > Technical Committee. > > Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project > > Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw > > an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility. > > Even that doesn't say that there cannot be overlaps in areas of > responsibility; the thing that cannot be overidden is a *decision*. > > However, it is slightly more complicated: > > > 4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. > > It has generally been interpreted that once the DPL delegates something > under 5.1 (4) that's something for whom someone else now has > responsibility and so the DPL themselves cannot act. > > My interpretation is that the DPL can revise the delegation and > potentially even create overlapping delegations, but in general > (especially without special wording in the delegation text) cannot > themselves act in such a situation. > > Which is to say that I strongly agree with the principle behind how > we've interpreted it, I agree with the practical consequences I can > think of, but there are some corner cases (that are unlikely to come up) > where I think evolution of our thinking would be valuable. > > However none of this matters to the current situation. > The power in question comes from 5.1(5) not 5.1(4). > We'll save the question of whether I could write a delegation such that > I delegated all of my 5.1(5) power and retained none of it myself: I'm > definitely not doing that here.
Ack, thanks for the clarification. :) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.