]] "G. Branden Robinson"
But Sean is right that this is a view that multiple TCs have
expressed
on multiple occasions.
Acknowledged. I would then simply urge the current TC to keep
in mind
that this limitation is one that they have _chosen_, not one
that has
been imposed on them. With luc
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 02:51:02PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:45:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Ian
> Jackson wrote:
> > Looking at the responses to Sean and my draft GR proposal last
> > month, it seems that a several people were upset that we were
> > trying to use
Hello,
On Tue 15 Apr 2025 at 04:45pm +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Looking at the responses to Sean and my draft GR proposal last month,
> it seems that a several people were upset that we were trying to use
> the formal governance mechanism at all. A lot of electrons were
> expended trying to find
On Tuesday, April 15, 2025 8:45:40 AM Mountain Standard Time Ian
Jackson wrote:
> Looking at the responses to Sean and my draft GR proposal last
> month, it seems that a several people were upset that we were
> trying to use the formal governance mechanism at all.
This was surprising to me as wel
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: a Constitutional interpretation question"):
> The backstop on all of this is, of course, a GR,
In particular, the DPL has the power to make a GR all by themselves.
If a DPL has a serious disagreement with some Delegates, but thinks
the Delegates are otherwi
At 2025-04-15T16:45:40+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this is because there's a substantial contingent in Debian who
> "hate politics". They see us "doing politics" and dislike us for it.
> They think think Debian can avoid politics (spoiler: it's a project of
> thousands of humans, we can't)
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> However, I wonder how that fits with 8.2: "The Project Leader may not
> make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by
> the Delegate"
> As I understand it, that means that the Leader cannot say "I give you
> this delegation, but you must do X".
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Instead, the Leadership is supposed to be the front-line mechanism for
> oversight of Delegates, but it isn't working. That's one of the "more
> fundamental problems" that I was suggesting would be a better focus.
I get your point, and I mostly agree.
However, I wonder how th
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:14:47PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I add that more Developers should be thinking about questions of
> Constitutional interpretation more often, if they want to preserve the
> democratic governance structures that we have, including ones that
> haven't been weaken
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 11:31:24AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Obviously Kurt has the final say, but if he were to ask me my opinion,
> that's what I'd tell him.
Is there a need for me to actually make a ruling, or is this just a
theoretic question? I prefer not to make a ruling unless it's ac
Hi Ian,
A brief message from me this time!
At 2025-04-10T17:50:16+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
[...]
> You're right that we're suffering because of the lack of working
> mechanisms, short of GR, for situations like this.
I agree with you and Russ that my interpretation "challenge" is not an
urgent m
Gerardo Ballabio writes ("Re: a Constitutional interpretation question"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm not sure this cleanup is a useful use of our time.
> > There are more fundamental problems.
>
> We've just been having a several-dozen-messages-long threa
I'm not sure there's much utility in going back and forth on this more,
since I think we've both adequately stated our opinion, but I couldn't
resist adding a bit more explanation.
"G. Branden Robinson" writes:
> Yes, but the list _is_ in upright rather than slanted text, making it
> normative p
Russ Allbery writes:
> I am not the project secretary, just one random developer, but for
> whatever it's worth, I think this interpretation of the constitution is
> incorrect and the TC does not have the ability to override a delegate.
I am the current TC Chair; what follows is my opinion (whic
IMHO, any time there is a dispute on a technical issue, the Technical
Committee is the natural place where the issue should be brought if it
can't be resolved between the persons involved, regardless of whether
they are DDs, delegates, DPL or whatever, *and* it should have the
power to ultimately e
Hi Russ,
I'm delighted to hear from you. I was hoping to.
At 2025-04-09T11:31:24-0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I am not the project secretary, just one random developer, but for
> whatever it's worth, I think this interpretation of the constitution
> is incorrect and the TC does not have the abili
"G. Branden Robinson" writes:
> Looking only at the Constitution itself, I see the following.
> 1. "a person or body is usually listed before any people or bodies
> whose decisions they can overrule or who they (help) appoint - but
> not everyone listed earlier can overrule everyone lis
G. Branden Robinson writes ("Re: a Constitutional interpretation question (was:
Why Debian is dying)"):
> At 2025-04-09T14:21:56+0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > In practice, I radically underestimated the willingness of more
> > neurotypical people to perform the
Hi Ian,
Thank you very much for your prompt and serious response. I prize your
insights as our constitutional architect.
First I should note that my message seems not to have made it to
-project despite my intentions (and message headers). No matter, it can
be found here.
https://lists.debian.
I'm going to try to limit my involvement in this subthread about
project governance, becuase of the difficult timing/context.
G. Branden Robinson writes ("a Constitutional interpretation question (was: Why
Debian is dying)"):
> [lots of stuff]
...
> So, to me, the TC's view of the limitation on i
20 matches
Mail list logo
