On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Why not just trust the DPL to be reasonable? The language is them
> much simpler, too.
Just to even avoid having to have a reasonable DPL, we could also
require that changes to the list of organisations that are authorized
to hold Debian's assets be announced publicly some period of time (2
weeks?) before the changes take effect. [This would allow the DPL's
decision to be overriden without unecessary asset flapping.]
1: Although I agree that we have far more serious problems to deal
with if this ever happened, it seems to go along with the
constitution's trend of minimizing the actual power that the DPL can
wield as much as possible.
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
-- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.]