Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project"):
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:54:26 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> > Not all of the current and future SPI board are participating here.
>
> I think that is an oversight of all the people who seem to
> think that SPI is a valuable opinion provider. None of them I note,
> has sent an email to spi-{general,private}.
I've refrained from doing so until the SPI elections are over, since I
think it's likely to produce a better conversation afterwards.
>
> Why? Why can't the input from these much vaunted individuals
> be sought out now? No one has offered any rationale for why the
> contributions of the individuals that make up SPI's boards, current
> and potential future, is less effective than an official statement
> from the new, as opposed to the old, board.
It's not that we want an explicit official statement from the SPI
board (although of course they're free to make one).
But people heavily involved with SPI are currently concentrating on
the elections - probably rightly so. I think a conversation about
Debian's relationship with SPI is likely to work much better after we
see the results of the election. Having the conversation now risks
turning it into an `election issue', and at the very least having it
seen through the prism of some rather unfortunate conversations we've
seen in SPI in the past few weeks during the campaigning. Also, there
is one particular person who I hope and think we'll find constitutes
much less of a disruptive influence after the election than they do
currently.
> All the statements about how these individuals have expertise,
> have experience, are level headed jolly good fellows would also apply
> to their opinions solicited and provided right now, without making us
> wait.
They're busy just now; you and we (in Debian) can cope with that,
can't we ?
> There is no choice in the matter. The DPL has invoked the
> constitutional clause forcing us to wait until well after the
> elections are over so that the SPI board has an opportunity to have a
> say in this GR.
Good.
Ian.
Reply to: