G. Branden Robinson dijo [Thu, May 08, 2025 at 03:20:08PM -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.
Right. I have also argued (and spent too much time looking for said
messages... I won't be able to back my saying with a reference) that GRs
should be seen as a _formal_ way to poll the developers, not as something
that scares us. Not everybody shares that view, however; GRs have the
tendency to be divisive, or at least, to be percieved as requiring huge
amounts of textwalls.
I replied to your earlier mail because I felt uneasy by what I percieved as
a characterization of Andreas performing "under par" as a DPL by not
wanting to use his powers to start a GR. And yes, Sam not only used this
power, but explicitly included it in his 2019 DPL platform:
I think the DPL's ability to propose general resolutions is
under-utilized. I think that having the DPL propose a GR including the
major options could be a much less confrontational way to bring closure
to an issue than having an individual developer propose a GR and seek
seconds. If the process feels a lot more like polling the project and
guiding the resolution to a policy discussion, I think voting can bring
things to closure.
However, that was _his choice_ to make. No other DPLs (that I remember)
have used this power. So, I don't think it's an unduly expectation for
Andreas to use it just because the Constitution grants him the right to do
so — most DPLs in our history (including the one I'm currently replying to)
haven't done so. No shame nor underperformance in it.
Greetings!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
