[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:39:48 +1200, Nick Phillips
<nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> said:  

> Nobody is talking about giving the SPI board oversight of Debian's
> affairs. What we *are* talking about is managing affairs between
> Debian and SPI in a civilised, friendly manner so that we can avoid
> unnecessary flamewars and attendant (also unnecessary) ill-feeling
> and bad publicity.

        Why is a Debian constitution GR that adds the possibility of
 other organizations than SPI who could handlemoney for Debian
 (indeed, this is something that is happening already, we are just
 bringing the constitution up to terms with reality) any affair of

        I am all for managing affairs between Debian and SPI in a
 civilised, friendly manner -- which should include butting out of
 things that do not concern us. Should we have  a say in whether SPI
 allows the voting software people to be under the umbrella of SPI?
 Why not?

> It's also not beyond the bounds of possibility that the new SPI
> board will have something valuable to contribute to the discussion
> -- which we could listen to and take on board, because that's what
> you do when someone makes a valuable contribution to such a
> discussion. Or perhaps you think NIH syndrome is a good thing?

        The people who make up the board of SPI can speak now, if they
 want to. Even candidates for the board are not being muzzled. Why
 must we wait for an official statement of the SPI board on matters
 where they have no jurisdiction?

> And regarding your possibly thinking that we should be sending such
> a message -- if so, I suggest that you first consider discussing
> your reasons for feeling that way with the new SPI board.

        Why? I have very little feeling for what SPI does, as long as
 they do not lose Debian money for the third time.  Considering all
 SPI has to do is take in money designated for Debian, and hold it in
 a bank (something they have failed to do twice already), I see no
 reason to talk to SPI about any changes Debian makes to Debian
 foundation documents.

> I expect they'll be capable of listening to your concerns and taking
> on board any constructive criticism. If you are dissatisfied with
> their responses, *then* it might be worth proposing that we send
> such a message -- but not under the cloak of an "editorial changes"
> GR (although I hear such cloaks are terribly fashionable these days,
> I really don't think they work very well with the rest of Debian's
> wardrobe. Wrong shade of green...).

        You, Sir, are an ass.



A journey of a thousand miles starts under one's feet. Lao Tsu
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: