On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:38:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Perhaps because under the constitution, position statements are a > power that the developers exercise under GR, not a power that the DPL > has?
In spite of the rhetoric tone :-), this is indeed an important point.
Now that you made me double-check, I agree with you. I hereby apologize
for having overlooked this when I proposed to proceed differently. (Too
bad this hasn't been mentioned back then..., but that's life, I guess.)
By the letter of the Constitution, the DPL cannot bless the diversity
statement as a position statement of the Project, even if there is
consensus on it. Nor can Developers as a whole, unless they vote, no
matter the consensus. [*] That is a pity in this specific case, as it
imposes the use of a bureaucratic procedure in one of the (rare)
occasions where it could have been avoided. But dura lex, sed lex.
There seems to be only two ways out of this: (1) have a GR, or (2) turn
a blind eye on the Constitution recommended procedure, accepting we made
a mistake (of which I'm ready to take the blame), and move on. While I
still see the advantage of not doing a GR, I don't think they warrant
doing (2) as that will set a pretty bad precedent.
Bottom line: I propose to have a GR. I think it would be nice if
Francesca starts it, and I hope it will confirm the result of this
discussion.
Again, my apologies for having suggested to proceed otherwise,
Cheers.
[*] For the Constitution geeks, the quirk is that "[position]
statements" are explicitly covered by §4.1.5, so they do not fall
under §5.1.4 ("The Project Leader may […] make any decision for whom
noone else has responsibility."). Also, §4.1.5 is bound by the
procedure in §4.2, which is the usual voting procedure. I hereby
propose this as a nice NM question for the future!
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
