Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

A little while ago I wrote this:

> There are often topics about where it would be useful to have a
> statement of position, or some recommendations for project
> participants (or for users or citizens).  I'm speaking here primarily
> of nontechnical matters.
> 
> Often these are in the remit of individual maintainers or
> maintainership teams.  So for example, the boundaries of what counts
> as a release-critical bug, or decisions about licence acceptability.
> 
> But there are also topics which aren't covered by an existing team or
> delegation.  There are a couple of these that are on the DPL's plate
> right now:
> 
>   - Dealing with "inbound" trademarks.  Ie, how best to deal with
>     possible trademark risks in the software we deal with;
> 
>   - A requests from Debian as a whole to its downstreams including
>     particularly a specific request to eg Ubuntu;
> 
> Up to this point in the project we have normally published only:
> 
>   - GRs
> 
>   - Formal policy documents issued by teams (of which the Dev Ref is
>     an example);
> 
>   - Press releases
> 
>   - Informal statements by individuals 
> 
> I think it would be useful to add a new category to this list:
> 
>   - Formal policy document from the DPL

This would be implemented by the DPL establishing a section of the
website where they provide, in their role as Project Leader, some
statements of their opinion about matters relating to Debian.

For avoidance of doubt I envisage that the website section would be
under the control of whoever was the DPL at the time (and any
Delegates they appoint for the task of gardening it or parts of it).
So a future DPL could revoke or amend the statements.

And I would hope that a decision to publish such a statement would be
a decision by the DPL and therefore subject to overturn by GR.


Some people have suggested that such an action by the DPL would need a
constitutional change.

Can you please confirm your interpretation of the constitution ?

If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can
you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages
setting out position statements are permitted and which are also
unconstitutional ?

 <h1>Position Statements from the Debian Project Leader</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from Charles Plessey, Debian Developer</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from the Debian Emacs team</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from Alice Jones,
     Debian Gnomovision Maintainer</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from Barking Kook, Debian User</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from the Debian Project Secretary</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from the Chairman
     of the Debian Technical Committee</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from Andreas Barth,
     member of the Debian Technical Committee</h1>

 <h1>Position Statements from owner@bugs.debian.org</h1>


I look forward to hearing your views.

Thanks,
Ian.