Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote: [...]
> A request to "respect all Debian constitutional decisions" is pretty
> useless without a charter specifying how those decisions are going to be
> delivered to the board and how the board is supposed to know that they are
> legitimate. [...]

Fine. I think it's a good idea to commit to the goal *as well as*
stating what methods will be used to achieve it. If those methods
fail for some unforseen reason, then there'll still be the explicit
goal and we won't have the pain of getting a new resolution before
SPI can act.

> Actually, on the it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it front, what decision or
> question has AJ, or his predecessor, *not* relayed reliably to the Board?
> There's an implication on this thread that AJ is not trustworthy, and I
> have yet to see evidence of it.

No such implication from me on this thread. I welcome AJ's promise to
report accurately and trust him to keep it.

I feel the implication is that (all SPI board members over all time) +
(all DPLs over all time) are not trustworthy to preserve an unwritten
relationship. Given that we don't know who many of those people are,
that seems reasonable to me.

I feel it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it is often a bad argument. Why do
groups plan a complaints procedure before they get a complaint?

This isn't it-aint-broke-don't-fix-it anyway: I think there have been
at least three interpretations of the debian-SPI relationship posted
so far. What's real and what isn't?

Even if SPI decides to define the relationship in a way that
interferes in debian project decision-making, at least the project
will know where it stands before there's any dispute.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker,
developer of koha, debian, gobo, gnustep, various mail and web s/w.
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/