Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 07:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > There have been fixes, but it is a second party and no charity.
> Why not?
I don't know. Ask the leaders of the Debian UK Society.
As I understand it, they are unwilling to register as a charity
and conduct the whole enterprise for the benefit of the community
rather than its members. IMO, there are all sorts of unanswered
questions about that, but most are now Somebody Else's Problem.
> > What "Debian procedures" do you think were followed when establishing
> > the Debian UK Society? Telling the people affected after the event is
> > not the usual way.
> Actually, it is. Most infrastructural things are implemented that way:
> some people sit together, think "this might be a nice thing to do",
> actually go ahead and do it, and then tell the world that something has
They actually tell the people it affects and fix bugs promptly.
For major changes, like transitions, there's usually warning in
advance. Some UK-resident DDs are probably still unaware they
had been called members of DUS.
However, I think calling that "Debian procedures" is rather grand.
> > When speaking to external people, ask for donations to go to one
> > of the registered charities. Those should make it clear exactly
> > what is held for the debian project, what are other funds and
> > document the instructions to spend, unlike a private business.
> Where and how does Debian-UK not do this?
What a strange question! It does that nowhere, by not doing it.
> Either you think this is an issue, and then you're prepared to go all
> the way; or you think it is not, in which case you stop bothering
> everyone involved with your constant whining about Debian-UK.
This is not binary. I think it's an issue, but I think going
"all the way" would do more harm than good, now that I'm not
directly implicated. I don't think infrequent comments when
someone else raises it are "constant whining" but I've already
been threatened with expulsion once over this - like it's so
evil to want DD businesses not to trade as "debian" - and it
could put any funds held by the Debian UK Society at risk.
That would not be good for anyone.
> A GR is not some "pointless bureaucracy"; it is a documented procedure
> for you to change something that would normally be out of your
Generalising often makes strawmen.
The Debian UK Society (not debian-uk, which is a useful mailing
list) is not the debian project. I've been told that DDs only
agree to follow project decisions in their work for the project,
so a GR seems of little use. Even if it succeeded, it would be
limited to things like reversing the DPL decision to license
the trademark, but a GR can't force action against unlicensed
use of the trademark, AIUI, and most of the Debian UK Society's
actions are out of Debian's responsibility, let alone mine,
so it seems rather pointless bureaucracy *in this case*.
If there is a useful GR possible in this case, please explain it.
Hope that explains,
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct