On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
> delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
> not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
> is actually §8.3:
>
> 8.3. Procedure
>
> Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
> implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
Delegates may make decisions as they see fit,. They should
attempt to implement good technical decisions. Use the or
alternative. The follow consensus opinion is an or.
> FWIW I believe the mail on dda fails that in so many levels… that indeed
> I believe the GR isn't really needed and that either the secretary or
> the DPL should have his word in this. But oh well, if one want an
> humiliating GR for that matter, let's do it.
Urm, what word do you want from secretary? I have already stated
that as secretary I thought that this did not violate the constitution,
and that DAM can decide who is or is not a DD, and that there already
are mapping from the set of developers to capabilities which are
non-uniform, and this added nothing but a semi formal mapping of
subsets of developers to capabilities which is definitely a power that
can be delegated.
So, no constitutional violation here.
manoj
--
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year
ago." Bernard Berenson
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
