Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:02:21 +1200, Nick Phillips
<nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> said:
> I think we really should learn to use more than just written rules
> to guide our actions. Just because "the rules" say that we *can* do
> things in a particular way does not mean to say that we would not be
> better off doing them slightly differently.
> And when an organisation such as SPI is involved, with which Debian
> is supposed to be on friendly terms, the friendly thing to do would
> be to avoid giving them too many things to think about at once. To
> do otherwise could (and perhaps should) be interpreted as an attempt
> to convey a particular message, which would be unfortunate.
So not giving the SPI board oversight on how Debian conducts
it's internal affairs is sending an unfortunate message? Perhaps I do
think we should send such a message; and indeed, we should consider
the creation of a Debian Foundation, more sensitive to our eeds, with
a constitution that precludes it interfering with our modus operandi
or else it feels offended.
Since when neglecting to give the SPI board oversight on our
GR's, or waiting for their seal of approval, has become the norm?
Does SPI wait for the Debian tech ctte to comment on their internal
processes before they undertake major action? Should DSebian not
have oversight instead (as an organization) on an entity that skims
off the top of funds given to Debian to see how such funds are being
spent?
manoj
--
It is impossible for an optimist to be pleasantly surprised.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: