Re: SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads

MJ Ray writes ("SPI's respect for debian resolutions, was: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads"):
> Given that SPI has a policy of not interfering in project decision-making,
> would the board please confirm at its forthcoming meeting that: SPI's
> current understanding is that the Debian Consitution defines who is
> authorised to act for the project and when; and SPI will recognise
> decisions taken according to the Debian Constitution?

As I said on debian-project(?) I obviously agree with those
statements.

If it would be helpful to Debian, I will draft a resolution in the
now-standard format describing our current understanding of our
relationship with Debian.

AJ, do you think that would be helpful ?

It wouldn't make the agenda for this Friday's board meeting.

> (This is a leading question as a result of the recent thread on
> debian-vote questioning whether SPI would respect a General Resolution.
> I would be happy for it to be considered in either the Correspondence
> Report or the debian questions item, rather than as a new item.)

I think SPI would respect a General Resolution.

Ian.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:02:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As I said on debian-project(?) I obviously agree with those
> statements.

To be a little more clearer than last time; I consider the "project
representative" position to be responsible for communicating that
project's decisions to SPI, and communicating anything relevant from SPI
back to the project. I think having the DPL be Debian's representative
is simple and expedient and that's about it. If Debian sees it as a
potential conflict of interest, it's easily changed, but I think it'd
be a lot of hassle for no benefit.

> If it would be helpful to Debian, I will draft a resolution in the
> now-standard format describing our current understanding of our
> relationship with Debian.
>
> AJ, do you think that would be helpful ?

I think this is mostly something that would be helpful for MJ, rather than
Debian as a whole; but I'd certainly expect SPI to have something in its
books making it official how Debian's decisions are communicated to SPI.

Cheers,
aj

Ian,

On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:42:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:02:01PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If it would be helpful to Debian, I will draft a resolution in the
> > now-standard format describing our current understanding of our
> > relationship with Debian.
> >
> > AJ, do you think that would be helpful ?
>
> I think this is mostly something that would be helpful for MJ, rather than
> Debian as a whole; but I'd certainly expect SPI to have something in its
> books making it official how Debian's decisions are communicated to SPI.

I agree with AJ; whether or not it's useful for Debian, I'd still
encourage you to draft the resolution, because it is a glaring
deficiency that SPI doesn't have any official resolution for Debian
serving the purpose of our associated project resolutions for the newer
projects.

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

Jimmy, AJ,

> I agree with AJ; whether or not it's useful for Debian, I'd still
> encourage you to draft the resolution, because it is a glaring
> deficiency that SPI doesn't have any official resolution for Debian
> serving the purpose of our associated project resolutions for the newer
> projects.

It would be helpful to *me*.

However, such a resolution needs to address the issue of who should bring a
request from Debian to the board if not the DPL. You cannot expect
responsible board members to read debian-vote and take action on our own
initiative; there needs to be an official delegate from Debian to SPI,
however appointed, and the selection of this delegate needs to be easily and
publically verifiable.

--
Josh Berkus
Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
www.spi-inc.org

Anthony Towns <aj(at)azure(dot)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> wrote:
> I think this is mostly something that would be helpful for MJ, rather than
> Debian as a whole; but I'd certainly expect SPI to have something in its
> books making it official how Debian's decisions are communicated to SPI.

I thought it was blindingly obvious that all valid debian decisions
would be respected by SPI, but
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00083.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00117.html suggests
some board members may disagree. I think it could be helpful to the
debian project as a whole, depending who is elected as DPL in future,
and it's shameful that Anthony Towns is personalising yet again.

Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> It would be helpful to *me*.
>
> However, such a resolution needs to address the issue of who should bring a
> request from Debian to the board if not the DPL. [...]

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2002-07-02-iwj.5
makes no similar specification AFAICT, but it could be useful.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

MJ,

>> However, such a resolution needs to address the issue of who should bring a
>> request from Debian to the board if not the DPL. [...]
>
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2002-07-02-iwj.5
> makes no similar specification AFAICT, but it could be useful.

And as you'll notice, current associated project applications require
the project to have an official delegate. The resolution quoted above
does not scale; it could require the Board to monitor the government MLs
of every associated project, all the time. That's just not practical.

Regardless of the decision-making means, the Board needs an official
statement or request from and AC to take any kind of action. Otherwise
you also risk having the Board interpret organizational internal
politics for themselves, which I don't think anybody wants.

--Josh Berkus