On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:06:08PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 09:58:14AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > >While we're intentionally trying to keep the numbers [low?] and the > > >involvement of members high feel free to write to Greg about joining > > >the list. > > > > I am concerned that it appears to be working in secret, which is different > > to most of Debian. I hope that it will try to consult the project members > > in the near future. Of course the sane default is always to keep archives for any Debian or SPI related list open. I believe that in this case, Greg Pomerantz was concerned that the attorney client relationship (Greg's firm is engaging SPI as a client) meant that we might want to not have the discussion itself open to the world. > That is, have their proceedings be open for review by developers > (hint: set up the mailing list or alias somewhere in where Debian developers > can freely subscribe or unsubscribe, and archive mails at > master:~debian/archive/foo/). This seems very possible. I'll point this thread out to Greg and we can hopefully work something like this out. Since I certainly was terse last time, I want to emphasize that the committee is open for other people to join. Several people signed onto the committee list after Debconf and several more people after I posted about it on -private recently. The more involvement from interested and active members of the community at this point, the stronger and more representative of a policy we will come up with. We've been very slow so far so more active members would be very welcome. The comments I made about keeping the committee small are connected to the need to the attorny/client stuff mentioned above. > > >Once we have something, Debian will be able to use, or not use, the > > >policy at their discretion. > > The matter of law is probably straightforward, but I'm pretty sure that > Debian's decision making process doesn't have to work in a way that some > reasonably unknown committee mumbles something in private and then presents > the solution as a done deal to the developers, or even just the DPL. Of course not. I have no doubts that many people will bring up very valid points and critique if and when we get to this point and that we will work from there. > I'm probably reading too much into what you wrote, mako, as your comments > seemed to have been written somewhat hastily so we can probably assume you > were unintentionally terse. Thanks for being so patient with me. A lesser man would might have simply flamed. :) I wasn't really trying to describe the entire committee but was just answering the comments about the nature of the policy that should be created and wanted to warn people that if we're going to keep Debian as a trademark, something that the SPI board, the DPL and many (most?) developers seem to want, we must work within the constraints of trademark law. What I have done is attached a text version of the resolution that SPI passed creating the committee. This is supposed to be on the SPI website but the HTML version I sent to spi-www after the meeting never got posted for some reason. This information was always supposed to be public and published and I'm sure it was simply an oversight that it wasn't. I'll send a follow-up to spi-www to get this fixed. I hope this allays some of the fears people. Neither I, nor anyone else, is trying to do this is a close-door fashion (TINC) and we're all dedicated to keeping this as open as we possibly can. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.yukidoke.org/
Attachment:
pgpO3B2PGPtnM.pgp
Description: PGP signature