Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

Theodore Tso <tytso(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> [...] the best way do that is to have a single
> designated project representative. SPI should not stick its nose or
> try to interpret the politics of any of its projects; [...]

I think that's absurd: by designating a single project representative,
SPI would be sticking its nose into the debian project's politics and
essentially rewriting the project constitution in a small way.

If SPI really wants to do that, it can, but I don't think SPI should
break past promises so lightly. What is the compelling need to break
this promise?

Most of the time, SPI and the debian project will interact smoothly,
just as they have for years without any written SPI statement, until
some of this board. It doesn't seem very stressful for SPI to follow
a project's constitution (and so ask the debian project secretary, who
"adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution" at
present) the one time in a few hundred that it doesn't run smoothly.

Regards,
--
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/