Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

From: Josip Rodin <joy(at)entuzijast(dot)net>
To: treasurer(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: 2007-03-11 22:28:25
Message-ID: 20070311222825.GA19427@keid.carnet.hr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: spi-general

On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:20:52AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Anyway, do other associated projects implement any similar safeguards?
>
> Speaking for PostgreSQL, no, not really. However, it takes us less than a
> week to replace our Liason if it becomes necessary, and frankly our charter
> was written with having a second PostgreSQL person on the board as assumed,
> so that person acts as a brake on the Liason going 'round the bend.

It would take eleven Debian developers making a resolution within the
project in order to get an injuction on a decision by the leader.
(That's how I read Debian Constitution paragraphs 4.2.2.2 + 4.2.7.)

With this SPI resolution saying that those developers can then inform the
SPI board about that injunction, which the SPI board should interpret as
a change in authority of the project leader (ignoring the fact that it's
also a dispute - the injunction is a clear constitutional tool and not a
matter of judgement), we would actually be very swift.

> Also, I think we have more faith in our ability to pick a liason who won't
> go berserk. ;-)

I know you're joking, but jokes aside, I don't think it should be an issue
of faith.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Responses

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-11 23:14:37 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-03-11 21:20:41 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status