On 12 Jun 2006, Anthony Towns uttered the following:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:46:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 5. Project Leader
>> 5.1. Powers
>> The Project Leader may:
>> + 10. In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting
>> + property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
>> + ?9.). Such decisions are made by announcement on a
>> + publicly-readable electronic mailing list designated by the
>> + Project Leader's Delegate(s); any Developer may post there.
> Do we really want to make it impossible to authorise funds by going
> through -private should we need to?
Authorizing funds, sure. I can see why that needs to be
private. Adding a company authorized to receive funds, I can see no
reason for that to be done in back channels.
>> +9. Property and Monies held in trust for Debian
> Assets? That also covers trademarks and copyrights then, and
> contractual agreements with other organisations for that matter.
>> SPI and Debian are separate organisations who share some goals.
> If we're going to be properly separate organisations, why not move
> this to a separate document?
>> 9.2. Management of property for purposes related to Debian
>> + Since Debian has no authority to hold money or property,
> I think it'd be good to drop the "Since" -- we /could/ hold assets
> as Debian, but we (consitutionally) choose not to, and instead have
> others hold assets in trust for us.
>> + any
>> + donations for the Debian Project must be made to any one of a
> s/donations/contributions/ ? s/for/intended to benefit/ ?
Well, contributions immediately evoked in me the work people
do and contribute to the project, but that is just me. Donations do
seem to imply money and hardware, which is what we are talking about,
but I am open to changing it if people think contributions is better.
>> + of organizations designated by the Project leader or a delegate
> "L"eader? Should the possibility of delegation just be left implied?
>> + to be authorized to handle such things in name of the Debian
>> + project. Such authorization, or its withdrawal, and annual
>> + of activities by such organizations on behalf of Debian must be
>> + published by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic
>> + mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any
>> + Developer may post there.
> Why the "any Developer may post there" restriction? That would
> disallow -devel-announce, eg, if a developer had been banned from
> posting to it.
I think this is kinda nit-picking. Any list we select there
could be some DD banned from posting to it in the future; since
by-and-large all DD's can indeed post to d-d-a is enough. Or,
cross-post to d-d-a and some other mailing list, like the GR/DPL
election announcements are done, if you think that is in violation of
the letter of the proposed change --- that is a very simple
If a man disciplines, instructs and restrains them from what is not
right, he will be dear to the good, and disliked by the bad. 77
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C