On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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?
>
Hia,
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes:
> >
> > > This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> > > and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> > > trivially bypassable, beca
Peter Palfrader writes:
> But whether or not that document has any meaning or influence is a
> question for the ftp-masters, release team, and tech-ctte.
> The power of the policy maintainers comes from them being listened to by
> various teams, but those teams can revoke that and listen to some
Le lundi, 6 janvier 2014, 16.21:52 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I think the constitutional position of the policy team is as follows:
>
> They are a package maintainer team. They normally make their
> decisions themselves under 3.1.1.
I think that framing the policy team primarily into a package
mai
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> > and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> > trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who derives their
> > powers
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140106 17:22]:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> > .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/msg6.
Ian Jackson writes:
> This is all very well but I think de jure they aren't a delegated team,
> and the distinction is defined in the constitution. This is not
> trivially bypassable, because a delegated team is one who derives their
> powers from the DPL and the constitution limits the powers o
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > The policy editors will continue to be the maintainers of the policy
> > package, and can change the policy team membership and the policy
> > process as they see fit. Their substantive decisons are subj
Ian Jackson writes:
> So, in summary, I think there is nothing to be done here, except
> (ideally) for you to withdraw the delegation statement.
> The policy editors will continue to be the maintainers of the policy
> package, and can change the policy team membership and the policy
> process as
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Updating the Policy Editors delegation"):
> .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/msg6.html and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg00
.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/msg6.html and
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/06/msg4.html)
On 06/01/14 at 13:51 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03,
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +, 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) "
12 matches
Mail list logo
