Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status

From: David Graham <cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Date: 2007-03-06 13:57:19
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.55.0703060838220.32050@baffin
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Further my experience is that if 15% of a particular group is unhappy,
> > usually the person made a good choice. 40%? Not so much.
> If I were the DPL I would consider my position very carefully if a
> recall petition even got enough signatures to go to a ballot.
> To put this in terms you may be familiar with: Anthony was impeached
> and 15% of the decisionmaking body (those Developers who voted) were
> in favour of forcing him out and holding an emergency election.

>From the results, it looks like AJ has an 83% approval rating, to continue
to use terms you may be familiar with. Most leaders would be envious of
such a rating.

> No other DPL has done anything controversial enough to put to a vote
> to overrule the decision, let alone been subject to a vote whether to
> recall them.

I am glad to hear the current DPL is willing to take risks. What a
horrible thing for a leader to do!

This thread is not supposed to be about putting the DPL on trial: that's
none of SPI's business. There will be an election soon in any case. Our
mission here is only to formalise the existing relationship between SPI
and Debian in a simple resolution acknowledging that the DPL or his
delegate is the contact point for the conveyance of decisions by Debian
and thus, from SPI's point of view, the decisionmaker even if he is only
passing on decisions made by GR. As has been stated, if the DPL is not
doing a good job of this, it is the responsibility of Debian to replace
that DPL, and the new DPL's responsibility to advise the board of the
removal of his predecessor, with appropriate citation as needed.

Thus the extent of the constitution's mention in the resolution should
only be to acknowledge that the DPL's powers are detailed in the
constitution of the project, leaving any matter of changed constitution in
the future up entirely to interpretation as it would be for any project.
In practical terms, this does not limit who can warn us that the leader's
powers have changed or have been overstepped while allowing us to have a
constructive relationship with the project through the DPL.

- -
David "cdlu" Graham - cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
Guelph, Ontario -

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bdale Garbee 2007-03-06 14:53:12 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status
Previous Message Anthony Towns 2007-03-06 13:39:02 Re: Draft resolution formalising Debian's Associated Project status