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

Re: Denied vote and the definition of a DD



On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:10:28PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> First and formost, this discussion doesn't belong on -legal at all, as
> -legal isn't the body responsible for interpreting the constitution.
> That's the Secretary's job under 7.1.3. Forwarding to -vote as that
> (or possibly -project) is the correct list.

That's funny. The Secretary appears to be of the opinion that he cannot
"make up rules".

> > 1. Whence does the requirement for signed votes come from?
> 
> Via 7.1.1 and A.6.1

That would imply that the Secretary can accept votes by other means. It
also implies that the Secretary could insist that all votes be
communicated by comments on a bank wire transfer.

> > 4. What defines who is and is not a Debian Developer?
> 
> Having control of a valid key in the keyring is pretty much the de
> facto definition of a Debian Developer.

I don't think so. The document you quote below indicates that loss of
control of the key does not invalidate one's status as a DD.

-- 
Taral <taral@taral.net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Attachment: pgpKtDyxLzxwe.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: