Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

From: MJ Ray <mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Date: 2007-03-13 17:24:24
Message-ID: 45f6de48.i9kbnypQTIWoOjYH%mjr@phonecoop.coop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: spi-general

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> The only thing I care about is that SPI only accept a defined number of
> roles, preferably two or less that are allowed to communicate those
> decisions.

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.

Really, is resolving that:

The OpenOffice.org liason to SPI will be elected by the
OpenOffice.org community council according to the process documented
at http://council.openoffice.org/advisor-process.html. The initial
liason will be Louis Suarez-Potts.

significantly different from

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.

except using a few fewer words? The rest of the proposed debian
declaration is simply factual or request, after all.

> If Debian finds that their roles are cutting the bill, Debian needs to
> deal with it, not SPI. Debian could deal with it, simply by holding a
> vote, removing the person and having another vote to place a different
> person in the role.

I think that would be changing the person, not changing the role.

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?

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/

Responses

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2007-03-13 17:59:14 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2007-03-13 16:10:00 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status