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

Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements

Le Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:34:44PM +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements"):
> > I think this goes in the right direction, but wouldn't it contradict our
> > constitution, which only gives to the Developers via a GR the possibility to
> > "Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements"
> > that "may also include position statements about issues of the day" ?
> So just to press you on this, of the following prospective web pages
> setting out position statements, which are OK or not OK according to
> your reading of the constitution:
>  <h1>Opinions of the Debian Project Leader</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of Charles Plessey, Debian Developer</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of the Debian Emacs team</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of Alice Jones, Debian Gnomovision Maintainer</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of Barking Kook, Debian User</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of the Debian Project Secretary</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of the Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of Andreas Barth, member of the Debian Technical Committee</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of owner@bugs.debian.org</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of the Debian Technical Committee</h1>
>  <h1>Opinions of the Debian Developers expressed in General Resolutions</h1>

I think that there is a big misunderstanding.

When I write that the constitution does not empower anybody to
repesent Debian, 

 a) I do not write that it forbids everybody to represent Debian, and
 b) I do not mean  that it forbids everybody to represent Debian.

I also did not write nor mean that our constitution forbids other people
to represent themselves, other bodies than the Debian project, nor to
have their own opinions.

I just noted that, looking at our constitution from a formal point of view, it
does not answer directly to the questions "who represent Debian ?" and "who can
define Debian's opinion", and proposed an interpretation that is in line with
some argumentations read earlier, that a GR was necessary for our project to
declare formally that everybody is welcome.

I also probably misunderstood your original proposition, so perhaps it
is better to wait for other people's comments in order to make this
thread more interesting.


Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: