Gerfried Fuchs writes ("Re: Please update the DSA delegation"):
> Steve Langasek <[email protected]> [2013-12-05 03:32:19 CET]:
> > In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial
> > nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question. But that's
> > *not* the same thing as the delegation being a "rubber stamp".
>
> Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you
> implying that Hector is a controversial nomination? Where did I miss
> that part? From what I read in Lucas initial response to Martin, it was
> about general communication issues with the (current) DSA team (wheter
> or not that might be true), not with Hector specificly. The way you
> phrase it makes it rather sound that Hector is a controversial
> nomination?
Perhaps we are just having a misunderstanding of the phrase "rubber
stamp".
What I meant to say is that (even if the DPL hasn't explicitly asked
the team to manage its own membership) when things are working
reasonably well I would expect the DPL to routinely and quickly
approve uncontroversial appointments (if I may borrow your word).
I'm not saying that the DPL doesn't have a discretion. To me the
phrase "rubber stamp" means an approval which in principle could be
withheld but which we all predict will be granted (and, probably,
granted without a deep investigation of the issues).
It seems to me that Hector's appointment to DSA ought to fall in this
category, unless there's something going on that I'm missing.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
