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

Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project"):
>         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?

There's a crucial difference between consulting someone and obeying
them, which you seem to be persistently missing.  I'll explain it with
reference to this example of yours:

Yes, Debian does have a role to play when SPI is deciding whether to
(for example) support voting software.  The actual decision will of
course be taken by SPI via SPI's channels, but Debian is entitled to
fully participate in the discussions that lead up to that.

It would even be appropriate for Debian (or indeed any other
organisation) to issue a statement on one side or the other; for
example, the TC or the DPL could have very relevant opinions.

The SPI board doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum, without
considering the views of our allies.  Debian shouldn't do so either.
SPI is closer to Debian than an ally and deserves to be consulted.

It would be polite to wait for SPI's comments about this; the newly
appointed SPI board (and the departing board members) might then have
time to contribute helpfully to the wording, for example, based on
their experience with SPI.

Or to put it another way: Debian will make the decision but SPI is a
useful source of information and Debian would do well to delay
slightly in this case so that SPI can provide that information most
effectively.  After all, there is no rush, is there ?

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

Can you please confirm that you're not going to bill this as an
`editorial changes' GR ?  Because it's not `editorial changes'.
`Editorial changes' are things like my 15 minor suggested amendments.

What we have here is a clear change in the rules.  Admittedly we're
changing the rules to regularise activities that have been going on
for ages, and the ability of the DPL to decide on these matters seems
uncontroversial to those here, but we should be open and above board
about what we're doing.

Nick Phillips is right to point out that not every previous GR's
proponents were as open and above board as they should have been,
particularly with respect to the phrase `editorial changes'.

Now I've explained it without the humour, can you grasp the point ?


Reply to: