On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > just let me rephrase it then.
> 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin, nor Andi nor I, nor any of the current release assistants, were ever the subject of a formal delegation by the DPL, any more than your typical package maintainer is. The release team has had the /support/ of the DPL for as long as I've been involved in it, but we're not here as a consequence of the DPL's approval per se. I suppose the DPL has the authority to dismiss a release manager, but I don't think that makes it a delegated position after the fact. > that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming from a > delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an > organisation. It's just not compatible. Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a delegate, the DPL is the DPL. And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate capacity. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
