On Thu, December 5, 2013 02:15, Ian Jackson wrote: > I would go further and say that I think it would be better to do > things differently. For a team which is functioning well, it would be > helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own > composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. That way > there is no procedural problem: there is no question of someone de > facto making decisions which de jure they are not empowered to make, > or alternatively of having to have people wait for a rubber stamp from > the DPL before getting on with useful work.
Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want to solve with the whole delegation process, so we then know what kind of process would best address that. I see that currently the process costs the DPL quite some time while at least to me it's unclear what problem it solves for the project. Can we point to a concrete issue in the past few years that we were able to address more efficiently because delegations were in place? There are a number some teams active that perform tasks essential to Debian but are not delegated. Do we see more problems with those teams than with the delegated ones? Sometimes it seems to be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
