Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Perhaps a formulation like
> Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property, any
> monetary donations for the Debian Project must be made to an
> organization that has been vetted by the DPL to be allowed to
> handle such things in name of the Debian project, where no more
> than one such organization shall be vetted per country.
> Any property in hardware, trademarks, or in copyright will be
> handled by SPI, which is our legal umbrella organization in the
> might work. This would avoid having to update the constitution every
> time someone wants to create a new organization.
What if the organisation fails the vetting or a vetted organisation
collapses? Can't vet a second in the same country.
Don't you want to restrict eligible organisations, such as
requiring charitable-equivalent registration in their country?
Or would it be fine to make Microsoft France the vetted one there?
Do you really want to transfer power over the money from DPL+SPI to
just the DPL? Seems like a big reduction in scrutiny to me. We can
watch SPI's board work, listen and comment on their discussions to
them while they're happening. The DPLs I've seen so far seem to keep
their decision-making in their head or in private mails, rather than
justifying anything much in public. When public money is involved,
public process should be possible.
> Cc sent to -vote, because if we're going to update the constitution,
> this might be a good idea.
Please leave the constitution alone and fix those who are currently
in breach of it over donations - don't break the constitution to
match their bugs.
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct