Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:07PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Josh, would you agree that the part of section 8 that talks about 'any
> dispute regarding decisions' is the problem, and not the entire section 8?
> I pointed this out in an earlier mail, but it went under the radar, it seems.
>
> The bit about 'any change regarding authority' is worth keeping IMO.
> Authority is strictly defined under the Debian Constitution, and the said
> document is introduced already in section 5. Indeed, if the extra stuff
> about disputes is removed, section 8 becomes just a logical extension
> of section 5.

I like that suggestion. I have an amendment to Ian's proposal which is a
slight improvement on that which avoids the "300 liaisons" issue. Please
note that my amendment uses the paragraph numbering in the draft
resolution version on the SPI website here:
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/draft-resolutions/2007-02-28-iwj.1.html

--- cut here ---
Replace paragraphs 3 through 5 of the non-whereas portion of Ian's
resolution with the following:

3. The SPI Board does not intend to monitor the Debian mailing lists.
The Board will recognise decisions, statements, and delegations made by
the Debian Project Leader, currently Anthony Towns, as made on behalf of
Debian, except to the extent this assumption is contradicted by
information to the SPI Board by the Debian Project Secretary in
accordance with paragraph 4.

4. The Board specifically asks that the Debian Project Secretary inform
the SPI Board of any Debian General Resolutions which might be relevant
to SPI, including any proposals to put spending on hold, as well as any
dispute or change regarding the identity or authority of the Debian
Project Leader.

5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure the Board
is made aware of any situations in which the Debian Project Leader and
the Debian Project Secretary disagree on the identity or authority of
the Debian Project Secretary.
--- cut here ---

Ian, will you be willing to accept these changes? I think it keeps most
of your intent while satisfying most of the critics. The set of topics
about which the Board would be needing to act in response to
communications from "Debian Developers and others" with this revision is
simply to resolve identity and authority crises reflecting a breakdown
of the system of one normal and one backup contact, and in no other
situation. It also doesn't seem to upset the power structure in Debian
between the DPL and the Secretary as per the Constitution, given that
the Secretary is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and
election results, but the DPL is the primary external representative of
Debian.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org