Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:29:08AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 2007-02-28.iwj.1 included both individuals as recognition of the
> > current situation and ultimate authority of the project's
> > constitution, while emphasising that project members should alert SPI
> > to any relevant things not mentioned by the individual.
>
> I'm fine with Ian's proposal except for clause (8), which I would prefer to
> name Debian officers instead of "Debian Developers and others". I've
> already seen DD's on *this* list misrepresent the situation re: DPL
> authority (i.e. the recall vote) and am simply not prepared to make a
> judgement call on whether to take your word or Anthony's. So I'd prefer
> that clause 8 be stricken, since none of the other Debian officers are
> enumerated in the Constitution.

I don't see how clause 8 hurts - so what if there's disagreement? The eighth
clause simply says that the SPI board will listen to Debian developers *and
anyone else* saying something changed or is disputed about the DPL or the
secretary - it doesn't say that the SPI board needs to act upon anything.

It seems to me as a fairly generic statement - anyone, and it will probably
be the developers of Debian, can tell the SPI board that something changed
or something went wrong. After that, the board is not obliged to make any
judgements. It can, however, do something moderately sensible, like for
example ask the DPL and/or secretary if what those other people are saying
is true or not.

Leaving out the clause would merely leave the procedure on what to do
if e.g. a rogue secretary and a rogue leader who were replaced at the
Debian Project but did not tell the board that they were replaced -
somewhat undocumented.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.