[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 12:50:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:  

> 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.

        I have never seen SPI explicitly solicit official Debian
 project input, nor have I seen SPI delay any decision in order for
 such an input to be provided.  Can you show me which instances have I
 missed? If you can not, can you now see the difference?

> 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.

        SPI can issue whatever statements it wishes, including one on
 debian mailing lists as well.  It would be perfectly appropriate to
 do so.

> 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.

        Funny that such considerations seem so one sided.  What was
 the last time that the input of Debian as a project (as opposed
 to opinions of individuals) were sought out by SPI? Or do such
 considerations only apply to Debian, and not to SPI?

> 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.

        And why can't they offer their individual expertise now, as
 opposed to us waiting for an official statement by the new board?
 Nothing seems to prevent the individuals named from providing their
 input _right now_ -- is there? What am I missing?

> 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 ?

        I see no reason for SPI to wait and delay Debian's processes
 before the deign to provide their input.  Looking at the spi mailing
 lists, there is very little activity, election related or oterwise,
 so there is no reason that the individuals y'all seem to want to
 consult can't bend their minds to the issue immediately, rather than
 waiting for a couple of weeks before doing so.

>> 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.

        Since you are being unbelievably dense, and insulting enough
 to appear to believe I am as dense as that, I'll clarify:  The GR
 title, as far as my opinion of it goes, has already been set by the
 title of the thread on -vote. 
> 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.

        Stop belabouring the obvious with dictionary definitions of
  editorial changes. 

> 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'.

        And this, sir, is an insult. When I titled the GR for changes
 to the social contract editorial changes, I believed that is what it
 was. Telling the world that I was not honest and above board when I
 did that is an insult, a slander, and a calumny. You honestly think
 you can get away with labeliing my actions in my official capacity as
 Debian Project Secretary as less than honest and above board, and
 expect me to continue to work amicably with you?

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

        Now that I have explained it, can you understand that beating
 the dead horse on the editorial changes to the SC is insulting?

And furthermore, my bowling average is unimpeachable!!!
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: