Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers changing policy, which would be unconstitutional. OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any authority to a delegate? Ie. the DPL could delegate somebody to overrule developers on technical actions (6.1.4) or adjudicate disputes about interpretation of the constitution (7.1.3). I did read the constitution so that the DPL may not delegate authority that belongs to somebody else according to the constitution. I did think that you were referring to a future DPL delegation when you answered to aj, but I guess you were referring to the REJECT. aj: As per that interpretation, I've added a REJECT for uploads of debian-policy. I won't be looking into formally creating a new delegation 'til after etch has released, at which point I hope we can find at least four people who'll be active in maintaining policy according to the policy process we've had for quite some time. manoj: This presupposes that you have either managed to change the constitution, or replaced the secretary with one whose views are in line with yours -- since under current wording of the constitution, that would be unconstitutional. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: There are three ways policy can be changed: a) The Technical ctte can do so b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make -- think of it as over riding inaction) c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy. If c) implies that the DPL can delegate the power to change policy to himself, then there needs to be d) the DPL. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: There are three ways policy can be changed: [...] c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy. If c) implies that the DPL can delegate the power to change policy to himself, then there needs to be d) the DPL. DPL may not delegate to him/herself. Constitution s5.1.1 para 2: 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. ^^^ Does anything contradict that? Are people posting without looking? Even if the DPL can change policy as a result of other powers (urgency or whatever, but I don't see why), it should still be done in a way consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers and avoid overemphasizing their own point of view. Yeah, right(!) Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Debian Project Secretary writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation): There are three ways policy can be changed: a) The Technical ctte can do so b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make -- think of it as over riding inaction) c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy. The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the policy package. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Debian Project Secretary writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation): There are three ways policy can be changed: a) The Technical ctte can do so b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make -- think of it as over riding inaction) c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy. The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the policy package. You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any one. However, the people who maintain the policy package are still the maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to policy, they are still able to fix packaging bugs, and fix typographical errors (which is why the FTP master decision to add REJECT rules is wrong, and over reaching). Can you quote to me the section of the constitution under which you think the TC can strip a package away from a maintainer? Even overruling a maintainer requires the TC to act with 3:1 majority, stripping away a package from a maintainer is a power I have not seen mentioned. If you ask how the TC may delegate away it's powers to make policy changes, I can see the TC delegate making normative changes to the policy, and then the maintainers of the policy package can take that and upload the changed policy, as one scenario. manoj -- QOTD: I used to go to UCLA, but then my Dad got a job. 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]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ? I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like to ask you to do us a favour and present the appearance of propriety as well as the fact of it. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation): On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the policy package. You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any one. No, I mean according to the constitution 6.1(2) the TC is empowered to Decide on any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. In cases where Developers need to implement compatible ... stances (for example, if they disagree about ... who should be the maintainer for a package), the technical committee may decide the matter. Since the TC is empowered to transfer a package between developers, the DPL is _not_ empowered to do so unless it's urgent. See s5.1. However, the people who maintain the policy package are still the maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to policy, The people who maintain the policy package _are_ empowered to make normative changes to policy. I don't see how any other reading of 3.1(1) is possible, whether or not the policy maintainers are Delegates. You might say that only the TC has the power to make normative changes to policy (is that what you're saying?) but this is obviously absurd given 6.3(6): Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort. So the TC's power to determine policy is to overrule the policy maintainers, not to stand in for them. The TC is far too cumbersome for use as the first-line of decisionmaking. Also, if you think that according to the constitution only the TC has the power to make normative changes to policy, what makes you think the defined `policy process' has any legitimacy ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think. Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ? I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like to ask you to do us a favour and present the appearance of propriety as well as the fact of it. Duly noted. But since the secretary's job routinely involves running votes and DPL elections in which I have strong opinions, and interpreting the constitution is an integral part of the process, I would not be secretary if I did not think I could do my job impartially despite that. If it appears to me that my judgement as secretary is being affected, I shall immediately recuse myself and delegate the power. manoj -- After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done. 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]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation): On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the policy package. You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any one. No, I mean according to the constitution 6.1(2) the TC is empowered to Since the TC is empowered to transfer a package between developers, the DPL is _not_ empowered to do so unless it's urgent. See s5.1. That is only when there is a dispute between developers about who is the maintainer. Having the TC initiate such a process to strip away a package from a developer is over reachin itself. However, the people who maintain the policy package are still the maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to policy, The people who maintain the policy package _are_ empowered to make normative changes to policy. I don't see how any other reading of 3.1(1) is possible, whether or not the policy maintainers are Delegates. When changing policy, the technical decisions being made affect far more than their own work. So no, I don't think that it applies to the policy package, and that is an exception to the rule. You might say that only the TC has the power to make normative changes to policy (is that what you're saying?) but this is obviously absurd given 6.3(6): Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort. That, indeed, is true, as also borne out by experience. But unless the DPL or the TC delegate away modification of policy, policy will change only as a last resorrt, or if the issue is brought before them. So, in effect, the developers can, in a new policy process, bring each proposal before the TC, which can rule on it and elect change, or not change, the policy. So the TC's power to determine policy is to overrule the policy maintainers, not to stand in for them. The TC is far too cumbersome for use as the first-line of decisionmaking. That is not what the constitution says. Also, if you think that according to the constitution only the TC has the power to make normative changes to policy, what makes you think the defined `policy process' has any legitimacy ? It has none. manoj -- The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week. 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]
Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:01:11 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place until the Debian Project Leader has found at least three people who'll be active in maintaining policy according to the policy process[3] and delegates them. Consequently the REJECT for uploads of debian-policy must be removed. Actually, we really cannot vote on this as such, as the Secretary has already ruled [1] that the DPL has no power to delegate the responsibility for the policy manual, as that would contradict the powers of the Technical Committee. So, AIUI any vote should first be taken on the ruling on the constitution, as I don't think we can force the DPL (or the ftpmasters) to take an unconstitutional action. Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers changing policy, which would be unconstitutional. We can of course force the DPL to allow the TC members to have upload access to debian-policy. There are three ways policy can be changed: a) The Technical ctte can do so b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make -- think of it as over riding inaction) c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy. manoj -- The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest of us will go to the stars. Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpWiQqzUG7YS.pgp Description: PGP signature
