On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 12:50:19AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > perhaps we can just rename the role and tune it a bit in the constitution > so that it stops being misleading towards the outside, and perhaps make > more clear what the role entails towards the inside. Although naming it > for what it is, might also make the position even less appealing than > it is now, and less worthy of inclusion in ones CV and references. :) > If the latter, more appropriate names that come to mind are f.ex.: > > - Debian Project Ambassador > - Debian Finance Minister
While I generally agree with you, there's a problem: the position is a largely thankless, massive amount of work that's contrary to what Debian is about (code hacking and solving technical problems[1]). Our kind of people is strongly awerse to bureaucracy and management. Thus, a lofty glorious title is a perk of the job, let's not make it even less unappealing. Heck, we could go the other way, and extend the role of the DPL somewhat. A possible idea: DPL decrees. The DPL could get the right to make any decision available to a GR, as long as within 2*7*24 hours of the announcement not a single person who'd be eligible to vote issues a veto. That'd make matters like the recent oh-so-vital GR about constitution furniture both not require an action from a good percentage of project members, and, by being far more lightweight, allow doing more trivial, obvious or uncontroversial fixes without the whole machinery of a GR. Aborting a decree by just a single veto means there's no way they could be abused. That's just one of many ways to make the DPL more useful in non-boring matters and make the position more glorious without adding any actual powers (as if you can pass a decree, you could have done it via GR). [1]. And flamewars. You can't claim Debian is not about flamewars... -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Meow! ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Collisions shmolisions, let's see them find a collision or second ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ preimage for double rot13!