Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote: [...]
> Any thoughts that Debian should not have to provide an exact number of
> authoritative contacts with published information of who those contacts
> should be immediately laughed out of the building. [...]

Any suggestion that SPI should tell the Debian project who may make
decisions about its resources should fail the laugh test!

Theodore Tso <tytso(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote: [...]
> Hence, in order for SPI to protect itself, it is best from SPI's point
> of view to have a very strictly defined interface with which it
> interacts with its sub-projects, much like a bank has a strictly
> defined interface with its customers --- and for the same reasons.

Yes, SPI should name contacts like a bank does, but must also - like a
bank does - recognise that the authority of those contacts only
extends so far and so long as the "account holder" permits it.

> The legal exposure, not to mention the exposure to vast debian mailing
> list flame wars to SPI board members who are not otherwise obligated
> to be on various Debian mailing list, would be enormous.

If there are legal implications of stating a mechanism for making SPI
aware of project decisions, then I hope that a/ SPI will take legal
advice from their usual expert(s); and b/ it could be solved by simply
omitting clause 8.

Josip Rodin <joy(at)entuzijast(dot)net> wrote: [...]
> However, the text didn't really go far enough with that - what if the SPI
> board is duly informed about something like that, but it still decides to go
> through with transactions because it doesn't think they're a problem?

I expect someone (donor, other project decision-maker) could complain
and win legally, with all sorts of bad consequences for all SPI projects.

> Anyway, do other associated projects implement any similar safeguards?

I don't think other projects are sitting on as much money as debian
and have such a potential for a wide range of views among
decision-makers, so it's probably not as grave.

Again, please keep clause 5 of 2007-02-28.iwj.1 and not change the
debian funds into DPL funds, and I'm amazed that this is contraversial.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop maker,
developer of koha, debian, gobo, gnustep, various mail and web s/w.
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/