Hi Jimmy, you used the right words, it "appears" and it "seems" to you that this was a "status quo" state, but it might not have reflected the state as it has actually been in.
Regards, Safir > Andreas, > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:21:17PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: >> So the removed authority (and corresponding responsibility) was >> in no way only limited to the debconf7 location but rather about >> debconf in general. > > Right now I'm not going to address the issue of whether you should or > should not help finish DebConf6 matters, but I will point out that in > the email where the DPL made the delegation which he later withdrew, it > was clearly limited in scope to be about "the decision of which of the > two cities [i.e. EDI and SJJ] will host the next DebConf [i.e., > DebConf7]", and not related to anything else about DebConf. Similarly, > in his withdrawal email, he refers to the delegation as being about "the > decision on where to hold DebConf 2007" or "the venue decision". Check > the emails for yourself if you don't recall these details. > > It appears to me that him granting a delegation beyond what was already > the status quo and then removing it leaves the status quo unchanged from > before the delegation, and it further seems that none of this needs to > affect your status in or involvement with the DebConf team, either for > DebConf6 issues or beyond. Certainly most other DebConf team members > whose delegations were granted and withdrawn seem to have interpreted it > that way. How you react is, of course, your decision. > > - Jimmy Kaplowitz > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Debconf-team mailing list > Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org > http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team > > _______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
