I'm going to try to limit my involvement in this subthread about
project governance, becuase of the difficult timing/context.
G. Branden Robinson writes ("a Constitutional interpretation question (was: Why
Debian is dying)"):
> [lots of stuff]
...
> So, to me, the TC's view of the limitation on its power in this respect
> is anything but clear.
You make an interesting argument as a matter of textual
interpretation. But Sean is right that this is a view that multiple
TCs have expressed on multiple occasions.
In theory this ought not to matter very much because it ought to be
easier to deal with problematic behaviour by Delegates via the DPL.
The DPL is a single person (so no need for a committee debate),
and has both sweeping powers, and democratic legitimacy.
In practice, I radically underestimated the willingness of more
neurotypical people to perform the review (and if necessary
overruling) functions assigned to them in the Constitution.
It seems that all that anyone is ever willing to do is mediate - but
of course mediation is not accountability. Accountability requires
the oversighters to make judgements, and be willing to exercise their
supervisory powers - if necessary, against the wishes of the
supervisee.
Take Delegations. DPLs have almost never been seen to publicly
intervene in a Delegation. Even allowing for the fact that in a
well-functioning system, most situations will be resolved by private
discussions, you'd expect that in a functioning governance setup some
proportion of disagreements would result in the DPL seeking consensus
(Constitution 5.3; maybe using d-private) for exercising their power
under 5.1(1) to remove a Delegate or reassign some responsibilities.
That this doesn't happen is a sign not that our Delegated teams have
always functioned well, any more than a piece of software having no
CVEs means it is perfectly secure. It's a sign that the first-line
Constitutional accountability mechanism for Delegates isn't working.
> (1) ask the TC to prominently document their policy of
> non-override of Delegates ... and (2) ask [maybe]
> propose a GR to amend the Constitution to reflect [this]
I'm not sure this cleanup is a useful use of our time.
There are more fundamental problems.
> And also what the use of italics means.
The italics were introduced at some point as a way to add
non-normative explanatory text. See Appendix B.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
