Re: [Spi-private] Bruce's Platform

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:19:26AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of the
> > Internet"
> >
> I went over the by-law missions in another email. A number of them fit.

I quite strongly disagree.

> > I see no evidence whatsoever that lobbying is within SPI's current
> > remit.
> >
> Let's not call it lobbying. Some of that can't be done within a 501(c)3,
> and some can. It's education.

Education of a sort that is not part of SPI's currently stated goals.
Let's be quite clear, here. You want to be elected so that you can get
SPI to do something that it currently doesn't do, something that's
outside its currently listed goals and something that several people
have expressed disquiet over. You've also admitted that you could do
this without being involved in SPI.

> > I'm not sure that that's obvious. Does having multiple groups arguing
> > the same general point not risk the fundamental argument being lost
> > amongst the less important differences?
> Actually, it creates a constituency. One of the current problems of EFF
> is that they are sometimes seen as alone in this.

Excellent. We can put out a press release saying that SPI wholeheartedly
endorses the EFF's efforts in this field, which ought to help in that
respect.

> > I'm sorry, I find that insulting. Nothing in the social contract defines Debian's role with respect to SPI.
> I don't know why that would be insulting. The social contract doesn't
> have to define anything about SPI, it defines a good mission for Debian.

I find the idea of you defining Debian's role in the SPI/Debian
relationship insulting. If there is to be a determination of what
Debian's role is, that's something that should be discussed with Debian
rather than having you unilaterally stating that advocacy should be left
up to SPI. It just ends up sounding like "I know better".

> > Given the number of times you've resigned for Debian
> Once? Please stop beating dead horses of 1998.

You appear to have attempted to do so on at least four separate
occasions.

> > Of course, changing the by-laws would require convincing people that
> > mail was a better alternative to IRC.
> Our meetings are far outside of the by-laws right now. Read article 4.
> But I would not have to change the by-laws to hold most meetings over email.

I can't see any realistic way of conforming to article 6 in anything
other than a real-time discussion medium.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(at)srcf(dot)ucam(dot)org