Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > Even though it always says it's using 4.1.5, I have a hard time seeing > why I shouldn't also put them under 4.1.4 (and 4.1.3). As currently > written, I will most likely interprete them as using the power of 4.1.4, > and so require a 2:1 majority.
Here's my reasoning for why 4.1.3 or 4.1.5 is correct. Deciding Policy is the authority area for the Policy Editors, and deciding RC bugs is the authority area for the release team, both of which are delegated teams whose authority derives from the delegation and not from the TC, so a GR can make decisions in those areas under 4.1.3. 6.1.1 *allows* the TC to decide technical policy, but that power is not said to be *exclusive* (and in practice it certainly isn't), so I believe a GR deciding technical policy does not *have* to use the powers of 4.1.4, but can instead use the powers of 4.1.3 to make a delegate decision under an area of delegation that includes matters of technical policy. The implication, then, of stating that this GR is under 4.1.5 or 4.1.3 is that it does not bind the TC, and the TC could make a different decision on technical policy. I think that's correct; any such appeal will happen at some point in the future where the situation has changed, and allowing the TC to make a new decision without requiring the project have a new GR feels like a feature. Also, I have confidence that the TC will take the GR results into account. Speaking as a Policy Editor, I don't particularly care if this is a 4.1.3 decision (it's not an override since the Policy Editors have not made a decision here) or a 4.1.5 position statement. The outcome will be the same in either case. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
