On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:27:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
> > In particular, the Constitution says that `[a person] must not
> > actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under
> > them'.
> > 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,
This is an interesting point. The Debian constitution appears to assume
that SPI will be the only organization holding property in trust for Debian;
but this hasn't been the case for some time -- ffis, e.V. in Germany has
received Debian donations for years, and AIUI we also have donations held in
Australia and a pool of money we left behind in Brazil after DC4.
> 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?
Wow, in what sense are donations *not received by SPI* "earnings"?
For that matter, how is this a decision about property held in trust for
Debian? Before being received from the donor, the money is not held in
trust for Debian; so giving someone your blessing to receive that money
doesn't seem to be a decision *about* money held in trust.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.