Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)
Oliver Elphick writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5) "):
...
> I suggest certain changes between the double lines; lines beginning `X ='
> are to be deleted and replaced:
Thanks a lot. (Your notation was very difficult, btw. You might like
to look into using `diff -u'.)
I have incorporated your changes into 0.6.1, which is now available at:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation-0.6.1.html
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/debian-organisation.html
(I have not made these changes formal).
> [Not relevant to your question:] The last clause of this sentence is unclear
> in its effect. It appears to mean that someone (unspecified) may appeal
> to SPI to make a decision for Debian over the heads of all other authority
> specified in the rest of this constitution. I suggest that it would be
> better to omit this.
It now says explicitly that it's the constitution which refers to SPI
as a decision body of last resort.
> My changes are intended to remove the appearance of control that is
> equivalent to ownership. If SPI is a separate legal person, Debian
> can have no legal authority which is not granted by SPI's own
> constitution. Therefore it is wrong for this constitution to assert
> any such authority.
Right.
> I therefore changed clause 9.2 to make it clear that SPI have made
> certain undertakings. [I hope that this is actually the case?]
They haven't yet, but mainly because we haven't finalised this.
> It would be as well to get a NY state lawyer/accountant to take a
> look as well.
The best thing to do is probably to have Tim Sailer's friendly laywers
look over it when we're close to taking a vote, and then if they like
it the SPI board can agree to it. I think there's not much doubt that
the SPI board will agree.
> A highly relevant question here is, who has authority over SPI to make
> them keep these undertakings if they were to break them? I imagine that
> Debian's officers could do so, but the grounds would be breach of trust
> (an external authority) or of SPI's own rules. In neither case could this
> constitution be cited as an authority over SPI.
That seems reasonable.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: