Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

In what was is this different for Debian than any other project that
might wish to associate with SPI?

> 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.

Project representatives advise SPI, they don't have the ability to force
SPI to act.

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

And, uh, the "authoritative decisionmaker" for Debian is the duly elected
leader of the Debian project.

Cheers,
aj