Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Jimmy Kaplowitz writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> My wording was specifically intended to resolve those conflicts between
> the two recognized Debian contacts to SPI for which the default
> resolution (i.e., Secretary wins) would be unfair. I'd prefer if SPI
> didn't have to at least contemplate every disagreement among DDs or the
> public that doesn't affect SPI in any way.

Perhaps this problem should be addressed by saying we're only
interested in disagreements that are relevant to SPI.

> That opens up a denial of service attack where if any two individuals
> (whether DDs or media people or whoever else) disagree on what the DPL
> has the authority to do, the Board is inviting emails on every such
> occasion, and we could get overwhelmed with emails we theoretically
> requested if someone wants to be mischievous. [...]

If that happens we can un-request them! I don't think this is likely
to be a serious problem.

> I dislike flamewars as much as anyone, but there might be legitimate
> circumstances for such a CC buried within all the flaming, so I'd prefer
> to leave this out.

I can't see any situation where the SPI board should be CC'd on a
Debian flamewar. BCC on a particular message perhaps, or have a
particular message forwarded, yes. But a CC on the argument itself
leads to just the same kind of dysfunction as the corporate types who
CC the CEO on every slight controversial mail they send - everyone
else must now also CC the same people.

Ian.