Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt writes ("question for all candidates"):
> So, to the question:
> Should we amend our constitution to reflect how Debian is structured in
> reality, or should the people doing these tasks now be recognized as
> delegates of the DPL? What will you do to clarify the situation?I'm not a candidate, but: There seems to be no question here at all. The delegate status was always intended to cover (for example) the ftp administrators. The practical effect of this is that the Leader can fire (say) the release manager. I have heard some people claim that this is not the case and that somehow some of the teams like the release and ftp teams are not answerable to anyone. This is patent nonsense. Of course, the Leader should not needlessly annoy any of the delegate teams. For example, Branden said: `[the previous] project leader doesn't feel that the delegation process in our Constitution is the way Debian really works. He characterized a refusal to make delegates of the archive administrators, system administrators, and so forth as "pragmatic".' I think the right way to interpret this is to see that many of the people who do not agree about the constitutional position are doing a good job anyway, and there is no need to rub their noses in it or force them to lose a political battle. Branden seemed to be suggesting that he would formally issue a statement saying that certain people were delegates. I think that would have been a mistake. The Leader should leave the situation in limbo unless they intend to fire the current incumbents and have volunteers to replace them. And of course they should only do that if the incumbents need replacing, which I don't think is currently the case with any of the teams I'm aware of. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
