Sam Hartman <hartm...@debian.org> wrote:
Bill, in his role of policy editor said that he believed there was not a
consensus. He cited a specific set of messages that he believes were
not properly addressed.
>From the beginning, I have been puzzled by your approach to this issue.
With this paragraph, I think I’m beginning to understand how you want to
treat the issue. And I can’t say I think it is constructive.
Bill used his position as a policy editor to reject a change, not
because it was against consensus or against the policy process, but
because it was against his own opinion. Not as policy editor, but as
menu maintainer.
This is the root of the problem. By asking whether the policy process
has been respected, you are reversing the responsibility. It was Bill’s
responsibility from day one to recuse himself from policy decisions on
the menu.
It was also Bill’s responsibility, from day one, to raise his own
concerns to the policy change being discussed, not to rely on other
people’s nitpicks *after* the new policy had been approved and
committed.
Maybe, after all, this issue should not have been sent to the TC but to
the DPL, to ask for the revocation of the abused delegation.
--
Joss
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/1437405243.6245.129.ca...@dsp0698014.postes.calibre.edf.fr
