[dropping -devel from distribution list; this issue is non-technical] Hi Gunnar,
At 2025-05-08T13:35:12-0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > G. Branden Robinson dijo [Thu, May 08, 2025 at 03:49:08AM -0500]: > > A rule doesn't have to be absolute to be general--in other words, > > categorical. Moreover, one way to interpret accession to the office > > of DPL through election is that the event reflects a general > > expression by the developers of trust in the winning candidate to > > exercise one's personal judgment wisely. > > > > That's good for you [Andreas Tille, incumbent DPL], and potentially > > good for the Project. But we should also have a clear idea of what > > we can expect of our candidates in terms of the exercise of the > > constitutional powers of the office. > > > > Would you be more comfortable with me characterizing your position > > as, "I intend not to exercise the DPL power of initiating a GR > > except as an emergency measure, have not observed any qualifying > > emergency in Debian's history, and do not foresee one arising during > > my term."? > > > > If not, I am eager and intensely curious to hear of the exceptional > > circumstances you've contemplated. > > This would be all clear, Branden, were it not that a large majority of > past DPLs (if not _all_ of them, I cannot at this moment devote time > to finding the history behind each of our GRs) have refrained from > doing so. I agree. We haven't established a precedent for the DPL's exercise of §5.1.5 power despite its availability for over 25 years. In my own term I did give serious thought to initiating a GR for the specific purpose of surveying the preferences of the Developers, but I neglected that opportunity, as I did others. As I recall, my internal counterargument was a concern that the developers might have felt the GR process to be a waste of their time "just to conduct an opinion poll". That may remain a hazard, but since (as far as I know) it _still_ hasn't been tried, I would now say that if an appropriate issue presented itself to the DPL, they should go ahead. If the GR process is perceived as tedious or not worth the effort, then all of the ballot options (excepting possibly "further discussion") will fail to pass the quorum requirement, which I'd interpret as a clear signal of indifference from the electorate. That, too, can be useful information for us to have. It could also prompt DPL action under §5.1.4. "Make any decision for whom no one else has responsibility." > I guess that Andreas' mail (or even the constitutional text) could be > read as "there are exceptional circumstances for which a GR might be > expeditely started by the GPL, without requiring seconds, skipping > many usual steps". Nothing, I mean nothing, in the text of the Debian Constitution implies a reservation of this power to exceptional circumstances. It could have said so, as with §5.1.3... "[The Project Leader may:] Make any decision which requires urgent action. This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually urgent through lack of relevant action, unless there is a fixed deadline." ...but no similar language is present in §5.1.5. (Notice that this rule has an exception, then an exception to the exception. Reviewing the "system library linking" exception to the GNU GPL may be good practice for mentally modeling such things. ;-) ) > The DPL has the power to judge if we have reached said exceptional > circumstances. If we strike the word "exceptional", I agree. > It does not happen often, and our current DPL seems not to want such > an occurrence to happen during his tenure. I agree that that very much appears to be Andreas's philosophy of leadership, and as I said it is a conscionable one. And he'd be within his rights to change his mind some time in the next 12 months. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
