Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> In particular, the Constitution says that `[a person] must not
> actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under
> If you want you can hold a GR to reverse the DPL's decision but you
> must not interfere with people who are carrying out that decision, for
> example by emailing FUD to external people.
As you know, debian's constitution does not empower the DPL to
make decisions alone about property held in trust for debian,
so was that decision properly made under it? I didn't find
SPI's decision to endorse a non-charity business that doesn't
clearly earmark funds, but maybe it exists. When did SPI make
that decision and was SPI's board advised about the effect on
its 501(c)(3) status of encouraging part of its earnings to go
to that private overseas business?
I believe I'm not actively working against any endorsement,
but offering an alternative endorsement, just as one could
offer an alternative apt source and suggest others use it.
Promoting an independent apt source and explaining its
differences doesn't seem to count as actively working against
ftpmaster decisions. It's an alternative. In all public emails
in this thread, I think it's pretty clear that I am not any
sort of debian official endorser.
Merely emailing seems less of an "actively work against" than
emailing to propose the futile GR suggested, or emailing to
question this non-techical decision about my own debian work
that I made properly. Going "all the way" like Wouter Verhelst
suggested and trying to close the Debian-UK Society might be,
but I've not done that.
I think the apparent attitude to this sucks, especially given
the swift actions against DCCA while SPI board looks like
it's paralysed over another use of debian's trademark.
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct