On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Probably. But what is the purpose of not being able to delegate to > > the DPL then? I doubt it was added just to make sure that people > > understand that delegation means sharing power with someone else. > > We should ask the constitution writers (Ian Jackson?) to know their > intention.
Or digg the archives... the wording of this paragraph has been introduced between v0.1 and v0.2 of the constitution: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.1.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.2.html The relevant discussions concerning the version 0.1 are in that thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/03/msg01716.html I didn't find any rationale justifying that particular change between 0.1 and 0.2. The same paragraph was strangely worded in 0.1: "The powers of a person or body may be subject to review and/or limitation by others; in this case the reviewing body or person's entry will state this." > But, as far as I interpret it, it is a way to let his hands clear to : > - do his administrative and technical DPL tasks; > - be free from conflicts of interests; > - represent every single DD or team; > - be impartial and objective so as to mediate correctly. While this is nice theory, the DPL is not paid as are real politicians that are elected. I think there should be no rule that forbid the DPL to continue doing what he likes within Debian. If a DPL is involved in a team and have to take a decision concerning that team, he still has the possibility to delegate that particular decision to avoid any conflict of interest. And as usual, there's the general resolution of the developers as safety in case the leader goes too far. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
