Russ Allbery writes ("Re: a Constitutional interpretation question"):
> The backstop on all of this is, of course, a GR,In particular, the DPL has the power to make a GR all by themselves. If a DPL has a serious disagreement with some Delegates, but thinks the Delegates are otherwise reasonable and should stay in post, it would be entirely appropriate for the DPL to propose a GR. The project as a whole would then have a choice between supporting the Delegates' view, or the DPL's. In practice, one would hope that the existence of this route would usually make its actual exercise unnecessary. The DPL would write to the Delegates and negotiate them, making it clear that if agreement can't be reached, the DPL was inclined to go to -vote with a draft GR. That only works of course, if anyone thinks it might happen. Like any other formal corrective mechanism, merely knowing that it's on the table as a serious possibility has a salutory effectd. Conversely, if everyone knows that formal accountability mechanisms are off the table, we end up with a complete lack of accountability. It takes great strength of character for an unaccountable power not to eventually turn into a toxic cabal. That we have so many approachable temas is a testament to quality of our people. Looking at the responses to Sean and my draft GR proposal last month, it seems that a several people were upset that we were trying to use the formal governance mechanism at all. A lot of electrons were expended trying to find reasons why we shouldn't have done that, or shouldn't have done it yet. Frankly, I think we would have got similar responses no matter how we'd gone about it. No amount of waiting, or cajoling, or attempts at mediation or negotiation, would have been enough. I think this is because there's a substantial contingent in Debian who "hate politics". They see us "doing politics" and dislike us for it. They think think Debian can avoid politics (spoiler: it's a project of thousands of humans, we can't) and therefore they think the drama is the fault of whoever is complaining. In these circumstances it is hardly surprising that we have some teams that are well-known to be dysfunctional and toxic, but which nothing is ever done about. Anyone who tries to take them on gets punished, because taking on toxicity is by definition political. I wish we could get *better* at doing politics. If we did it better, we would have much a nicer environment *and* we would probably spend a lot less emotional energy on the politics, overall. 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.
