From: | Anthony Towns <aj(at)azure(dot)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads |
Date: | 2007-02-15 15:42:59 |
Message-ID: | 20070215154259.GB32578@azure.humbug.org.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:02:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As I said on debian-project(?) I obviously agree with those
> statements.
To be a little more clearer than last time; I consider the "project
representative" position to be responsible for communicating that
project's decisions to SPI, and communicating anything relevant from SPI
back to the project. I think having the DPL be Debian's representative
is simple and expedient and that's about it. If Debian sees it as a
potential conflict of interest, it's easily changed, but I think it'd
be a lot of hassle for no benefit.
> If it would be helpful to Debian, I will draft a resolution in the
> now-standard format describing our current understanding of our
> relationship with Debian.
>
> AJ, do you think that would be helpful ?
I think this is mostly something that would be helpful for MJ, rather than
Debian as a whole; but I'd certainly expect SPI to have something in its
books making it official how Debian's decisions are communicated to SPI.
Cheers,
aj
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jimmy Kaplowitz | 2007-02-15 16:01:12 | Re: SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads |
Previous Message | Ian Jackson | 2007-02-15 15:18:12 | Re: Resolution 2007-02-15.jrk.1: Openness of Board Discussions |