Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 05:54:47PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Supposing the DPL and Secretary ask us to spend some money, and while
> we're double-checking or getting around to a board vote or whatever, a
> bunch of developers get a quorum for a put-on-hold; but suppose the
> Secretary drags her feet for whatever reason (perhaps because she
> agrees with the decision, or perhaps just because she's busy).
>
> Now I would like one of those developers to mail the SPI board and say
> `we have enough people to put this decision on hold; here are their
> names and references to the procedure we're following'.

Fair point. I shouldn't have restricted to DPL<->Secretary disagreements
only. That complaint should be encouraged if the Secretary is viewed by
some DDs as exceeding her authority by delaying, or not serving SPI's
needs by communicating with us in a timely manner.

> (n). The SPI Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure
> that if the validity of a Debian decision relevant to SPI is
> disputed, the Board's attention is drawn to the existence of the
> dispute, if the Board might otherwise remain unaware of it.

How about this:

5. The Board relies on Debian Developers and others to ensure that the
Board is made aware of Debian decisions relevant to SPI that are not
communicated to the Board in a timely manner by the Debian Project
Leader or the Debian Project Secretary; of disagreement among Debian
developers regarding the identity of the Debian Project Leader or the
Debian Project Secretary; and of disagreement among Debian developers as
to the authority held by either of those two Debian officials, but only
insofar as this authority is relevant to SPI. The Board requests that
those who notify it of decisions or disagreements in accordance with
this paragraph take reasonable efforts to look for prior notifications
to the Board on the same topic, and that the Board not be notified again
if the new notification would be substantially the same as a previous
one.

This avoids the inaction loophole you were mentioning, and adds the
relevance and novelty criteria. Does this work for you (and everyone
else who's still reading)?

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