From: | Josip Rodin <joy(at)entuzijast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | treasurer(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status |
Date: | 2007-03-11 22:28:25 |
Message-ID: | 20070311222825.GA19427@keid.carnet.hr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:20:52AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Anyway, do other associated projects implement any similar safeguards?
>
> Speaking for PostgreSQL, no, not really. However, it takes us less than a
> week to replace our Liason if it becomes necessary, and frankly our charter
> was written with having a second PostgreSQL person on the board as assumed,
> so that person acts as a brake on the Liason going 'round the bend.
It would take eleven Debian developers making a resolution within the
project in order to get an injuction on a decision by the leader.
(That's how I read Debian Constitution paragraphs 4.2.2.2 + 4.2.7.)
With this SPI resolution saying that those developers can then inform the
SPI board about that injunction, which the SPI board should interpret as
a change in authority of the project leader (ignoring the fact that it's
also a dispute - the injunction is a clear constitutional tool and not a
matter of judgement), we would actually be very swift.
> Also, I think we have more faith in our ability to pick a liason who won't
> go berserk. ;-)
I know you're joking, but jokes aside, I don't think it should be an issue
of faith.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-03-11 23:14:37 | Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-03-11 21:20:41 | Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status |