Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:53:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Well, to the extent that the SPI board can listen to anyone, it may be
> harmless. But suppose someone cc's the spi-board to a mailing list
> flame war from a debian-mailing list that goes on for 500, 600
> messages? Would clause 8 mean that the SPI board is obligated to read
> each and every one of the messages, and not be allowed to killfile the
> thread?

(I don't think this is particularly relevant, because it would mean that
someone would have to sue SPI for having been killfiled... imagine that :)

> If however the SPI is responsible for making a judgement call

Again this... Hmm. I've re-read the text now, and I see that the problematic
part is that it mentions both 'any dispute regarding decisions' and
'any change regarding authority', but combined into one sentence.

I figure that from a legal standpoint you want to remove the first part,
but keeping the second part is fine. I think that that would be a decent
compromise. The cases where there is a dispute regarding officer decisions
can be handled internally by Debianites, and they can modify the said
officers' authority, and then tell SPI that such a change had happened.

I figure that the first part was aiming for the SPI board to be able to stop
a rogue leader and secretary from spending all of Debian's money away before
the constitutional procedures to stop them had any chance to complete.
However, the text didn't really go far enough with that - what if the SPI
board is duly informed about something like that, but it still decides to go
through with transactions because it doesn't think they're a problem?

Anyway, do other associated projects implement any similar safeguards?

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.