Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:17:33PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm afraid that this fails to clarify precisely the situation that was
> > being disputed. What if the representative fails to honour some
> > Debian GR ?
>
> Then that's something for Debian to resolve, up to and including
> appointing a new project representative.

Err, boggle. Firstly, dealing with that that way in Debian might well
be too slow. And secondly, the representative might `fail to
communicate' that they had been replaced.

There is absolutely no need to make the representative some kind of
all-governing oracle. To do so is definitely wrong and leaves us open
to abuse of authority.

> > Now obviously we expect them not to but the resolution
> > should be written so that these cases are properly covered.
>
> How is this any different to any other project having a representative
> that doesn't pass on properly made decision?

In the case of other projects where we've nominated an individual as
the `authoritative decisionmaker', that person was the leader of the
project.

NB that the authoritative decisionmaker doesn't have to be the same as
the representative; the authoritative decisionmaker is the person we
will believe if we can't tell the Judean People's Front apart from the
People's Front of Judea. The point is just that we need to write down
now (ie before any dispute arises) who is in charge or what the rules
are.

Ian.