Gerardo Ballabio writes ("Re: a Constitutional interpretation question"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm not sure this cleanup is a useful use of our time.
> > There are more fundamental problems.
>
> We've just been having a several-dozen-messages-long thread on -vote
> about a GR proposal that you put forward exactly because the TC can't
> override delegates.You're right that we're suffering because of the lack of working mechanisms, short of GR, for situations like this. But there are other reasons, besides the lack of constitutional power, why the TC wouldn't have been a great option anyway. The technical disagreement isn't the core blocking problem - after all, we agreed a compromise about that in 2024. Matthias's summary in <3f9ff339-7417-47c1-8f62-0f97252a5...@urlichs.de> may help explain. A similar situation doesn't arise for TC decisions about packages, because there we have NMUs which can be used to implemente a decison. Instead, the Leadership is supposed to be the front-line mechanism for oversight of Delegates, but it isn't working. That's one of the "more fundamental problems" that I was suggesting would be a better focus. 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.
