Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Date: 2007-03-16 19:08:22
Message-ID: 17914.60198.682325.161685@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: spi-general

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status"):
> Let Debian deal with it, and report (via the Liaison) to SPI the motion
> etc... If the Secretary drags his/her feet, then the DDs can form a
> quorum to recall her yes?

It is exactly this attitude which shows why this extra paragraph is
needed.

Josh Berkus says it's not needed because the DD's will tell us anyway.
But Joshua says it's wrong because we won't/shouldn't listen to the
DD's and should pay attention only to the liason !

As previously discussed, SPI has already committed to honouring
Debian's governance structures. And that includes honouring decisions
properly made _even if the appointed liason fails to pass them on_.

(Also, saying "DDs can ... remove the Liason" is pointless if the
decision to remove the liason is to be passed on by the liason.)

I'm sorry to have to do this but I am adamantly opposed to any motion
of this form which does not have an explict recognition of this
principle:

If the Debian postholders do not carry out their responsibilities to
properly convey Debian's decisions to us, we (a) want DDs to tell us
about this and (b) we will act on those decisions even if the
postholders prevaricate or obstruct.

Jimmy, would you write up a draft resolution with that paragraph 5 as
you last wrote it ?

If the Board passes an amendment goes to remove that paragraph then I
will vote against the whole motion. If the motion passes anyway then
I will have to consider what my available options are for ensuring
that SPI will honour its commitments to Debian.

As far as I can see it the only option that might actually work would
be to use Debian's processes to pass a formal demand of some kind to
SPI, or perhaps to explicitly appoint a favourable person as the
representative to SPI on this topic.

But I think we've got quite enough of a political shitstorm in Debian
as it is and putting me in this position is not going to lead to the
quiet life you're apparently aiming for!

Ian.

Responses

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2007-03-16 19:30:51 Re: Final SPI Board Meeting Reminder: Friday, March 16, 2007
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-16 18:54:10 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status