Re: are we being honest about legal resources?

John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> wrote:
> Please, MJ. This has NO PLACE on an SPI list. I'm a Debian developer and
> *I* don't even care. Take it to Debian.

Sorry for getting distracted by the specifics and ad-hominems again.
I already took the relevant bits away and I posted a link earlier
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/03/msg00065.html

[...]
> > What is unreasonable is making up new rules to claim a simple question
> > was forbidden or invalid because only one of SPI members asked.
> > That's just dicking people around with bureaucracy IMO.
>
> What new rule? It's been long established how SPI deals with member
> projects. Each member project has a defined way of interacting with SPI.
> And you are not it.

Any new rule that only member projects can ask after "their" SPI
tasks. I'm not a member project and I'm not asking SPI to deal with a
member project or start a new task for it. I'm simply asking what SPI
thinks is the current status of a task it seems to have left open.

That seems to be forthcoming, so I repeat:-

> > As pointed out previously, a past DPL was involved and one of the SPI
> > board is asking the current DPL for the current view. Please let's
> > wait for that and see how the DPL election plays out (two candidates
> > have different types of web work as part of their platforms so far,
> > which seems a good reason to vote for them) and keep further flames
> > off this list.

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/