[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7) (comments)



Richard Braakman writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7) (comments)"):
...
> All three looked the same to me; I hope they were :-)

Yes; I should make this clearer next time.

> I had trouble understanding the second paragraph of section 1:
> 
>    This document describes the organisational structure for formal
>    decisionmaking in the Project. It does not describe the goals of the
>    Project or how it achieves them, or contain any specific nontechnical
>    policies not directly related to the decisionmaking process.
> 
> There were too many negations in that last sentence.  I suggest to
> drop the words "specific nontechnical" (it doesn't contain any
> technical policies either, so that's ok), and replace "not
> directly related" with "other than those directly related".

You're right.

> I also have a more substantive comment.  The Constitution seems to
> contain no provision for a developer to leave the Project, other than
> by expulsion.  I think that s.3.2 should state that a developer may
> leave the Project at any time, by stating so publicly or by informing
> the Project Secretary (who will presumably make a public statement).

I've added a general statement that you can leave the project or
resign from a post by public announcement.

> I assumed that the Project Secretary would keep the authoritative list
> of Debian developers, but s.7.1 makes no mention of that.  Perhaps it
> should?  Determining the current set of developers is a non-trivial
> task.

Yes, also fixed.

> In addition, I am still not sure about the role of SPI.  s.9.2 says
> "SPI have made the following undertakings" and then gives a list.  Is
> this currently true?  I think it should be true before a vote is
> called, at least.

Yes, I'll try to arrange for it to be true.  If not then we'll have to
vote on "seeking the following undertakings" or some such.

> The introduction to s.9 also says "Debian's developers are currently
> members of SPI by virtue of their status as developers".  Is this
> true?  It would seem to depend on SPI's charter, not Debian's, and we
> don't have that.

I have a paper copy, which I have yet to read.

Has anyone else any more comments ?  If not I'll post a 0.8 with these
few minor changes.  In the meantime, -0.7.1 has the current draft.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: