Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

MJ,

> Why? SPI is not proposing to do that for OpenOffice.org. Only the
> vague term "liaison" is specified, and it is proposed that SPI
> recognises an OpenOffice.org council process at an external URL.

Actually, we are. OpenOffice.org will have *exactly one* represenative to
SPI, known as the Liason on our side and the Advisor on theirs.

> The Debian Constitution (http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution),
> and the persons holding the roles it defines and acting according to
> that Constitution, are recognised by SPI as ultimately authoritative
> regarding decisions of the Debian Project. [...] The Board will
> recognise decisions, statements and delegations made by the Debian
> Project Leader, currently Anthony Towns, as made on behalf of
> Debian.

I don't have a problem with that (Ian's) version. Like with OOo, it
defines *eactly one* point of contact, and further paragraphs define the
Debian Secretary (and only the secretary) as the "backup" contact. My
problem is with clause 8, which could be read to open up offical contact
to 100% of Debian members, effectively giving Debian 300 liasons, and
requiring the SPI board to adjuticate any dispute between them.

This is not something which I, as treasurer and board member, can deal
with.

> If SPI is awkward enough to name particular roles in debian and not
> recognise the debian project process, then changing the roles will
> require SPI to pass another resolution. SPI is considering
> recognising OpenOffice.org's process - why is it a problem to
> recognise debian's process?

Again, as long as Debian designates *exactly one* person who can request
funds, etc., I don't care how that person is selected. What I'm going to
vote against is any resolution which suggests that that multiple Debian
people could independantly make finanicial and/or legal requests of SPI in
conflict with each other.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
treasurer(at)spi-inc(dot)org